Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Confederation of British Industry

2010-05-15T08:10:58Z

Thevoiceofreason:

The '''Confederation of British Industry''', more commonly know as the '''CBI''', is a [[FAG ENABLERS|British]] [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization. It works with [[UK]] and international legislatures for the benefit of UK businesses.<ref>[http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/staticpages.nsf/staticpages/Aboutcbi/index.html?OpenDocument "CBI - about the CBI".] CBI.org.uk</ref>
==External links==
*[http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/staticpages.nsf/StaticPages/home.html/?OpenDocument CBI homepage]
==References==
<references/>
[[category:British Politics]]

Talk:Complementarianism

2010-05-15T08:10:19Z

Thevoiceofreason:

==I DO NOT KNOW WHO WRITE THIS FIRST SENTENCE, BUT WE SHOULD KEEP IT AS IT RINGS WITH TRUTH. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

In part, this page is a needful Christian (thus conservative) response the [[Egalitarian]] page, an essay which is so liberal i am surprised it is here, in its content and style. Its prolixity renders it an expanded version of subtle serpentine sophistry speaking "hath God said?" as regards that only men are normally to be in leadership, and then denying it altogether. Check out http://www.cbmw.org/Articles

And lest the other recourse be exercised by those opposed to complementarianism, that of personal charges of misogyny, let me say that i think women are like butter on toast, and we men are the toast (sometimes burnt, but some women are rather chilled), and also able to be used in ministry like men are, in their respective positions, nor do i have a personal thing with women rulers, but commitment to sound doctrine is an issue, and liberal attempts (and CE is certainly such) to controvert what the Bible says on such a foundational issue much moves me to respond, by God's grace. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:05, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Complementarianism

2010-05-15T08:09:22Z

Thevoiceofreason:

JESUS GOD IS THE ONLY WAY!!!

Southern Baptist theological [[Albert Mohler]] states,
<blockquote>
The arguments used in support of the ordination of women require the dismissal or "reinterpretation" of specific biblical texts which disallow women in the teaching office. The same is true of arguments for the ordination of divorced persons--and for homosexuals.<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/?cat=Commentary&cdate=2003-08-05</ref>
</blockquote>

==Primary Biblical texts==

That man is created first is seen as the first establishment of male headship, which is then further upheld and its application revealed.

* "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gen. 1:26-27)

* "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor 11:3)

* "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Cor 11:8-9) (The women is then required to have a head covering, symbolizing her submission to the man.)

* "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. {23} For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. {24} Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Eph 5:22-24)

* "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." (1 Pet 3:5-6)

In addition to the order of creation, the effects of the [[Fall of man]] has implications regarding the functional role of women :

* "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen 3:16)

* "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. {14} And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim 2:11-14)

==Complementarian arguments==

As part of the practice of sound [[exegesis]], obscure, anecdotal or general statements in Scripture are interpreted in the light of explicit ones. In so doing, the proof texts of Christian Egalitarianism, which are primarily Galatians 3:38 and examples of notable women, are understood as neither negating authority structures nor the creational distinctions between man and women, such as is stated in 1 Cor. 11:3ff, any more than the oneness which the members of the Christian [[Trinity]] share negates the hierarchical order within the Godhead. Instead, the positional/functional distinctions between man and women are seen to be patterned after the Divine order, and are part of the complementary nature of the male and female union.

In addition, it is argued that while exceptional conditions may allow female leadership, as in Judges 4, such do not negate that which is manifest to be ordained and established as normative. It is pointed out that no female priests were ordained in the [[Old Testament]], nor it is anywhere established that female apostles or Bishops/Elders were ordained in the New Testament. Examples such as Phebe, Junia (Rom. 16:1,7) or Lydia (Acts 16:14,40) are seen as far from establishing these we either apostles or leaders over men.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html Are Women Pastors Biblical?]</ref>

In support of male headship being ordained from before the Fall, Protestant theologian and complementarian author Wayne Grudem puts forward ten arguments from Scripture in his book, ''Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions'':<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/evangelical_feminism.pdf Wayne Gruden, ''Evangelical Feminism & Biblical truth''</ref>

* 1. “The order: Adam was created first, then Eve (note the sequence in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:18-23).” (p. 30)

* 2. “The representation: Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race.” Eve sinned first, but Scripture says we fell in Adam- 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-49).

* 3. “The naming of the woman: When God made the first woman and ‘brought her to the man,’” (p. 31) Adam named her- Genesis 2:23. Naming is a function of authority- See God’s naming creation Genesis 1:5-2:20.

* 4. “The naming of the human race: God named the human race ‘Man,’ not ‘Woman.’ (p. 34)- Genesis 5:1-2 “Does this make any difference? It does give a hint of male leadership, which God suggested in choosing this name. It is significant that God did call the human race ‘Woman.’” (p. 35)

* 5. “The primary accountability: God spoke to Adam first after the Fall…. It indicated a primary responsibility for Adam in the conduct of his family.” (p. 36) Genesis 3:9

* 6. “The purpose: Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve.” (p. 36) She was Adam’s helper by virtue of creation, not in certain situations, but in a normative sense. Genesis 2:18, 1 Corinthians 11:9

* 7. “The conflict: The curse brought a distortion of roles, not the new introduction of roles.” (p. 37) Genesis 3:16 is not how the roles ought to be, but is how the created roles were distorted.

* 8. “The restoration: When we come to the New Testament, salvation in Christ reaffirms the creation order.” (p. 40) In Christ the curse is reversed and the created roles are restored- Colossians 3:18-19.

* 9. “The mystery: Marriage from the beginning of Creation was a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church.” (p. 41) Paul makes this point in Ephesians 5:31-32, and it is applied in 5:23.

* 10. “The parallel with the Trinity: The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflect the quality, differences, and unity in the Trinity.” (p. 42)<ref>http://ateam.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/4/2199029.html </ref>

In addition to exegesis of relevant passages in support of Complementarianism, arguments by Egalitarians are examined and countered,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html</ref> such as in ''Gender Passages in the New Testament: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued''. <ref>http://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/kostenberger_andreas/genderpassagesnt.pdf</ref><ref>Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994); pp. 259–83</ref>

==Official affirmations==
The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was issued in December, 1987, in Danvers, [[Massachusetts]]. Affirmations 1 through 8 (abridged) state:

* 1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).

* 2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

* 3. Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

* 4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

* 5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

* 6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.

* 7. In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).

* 8. In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God's will.<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement</ref>

==Contrasted with [[liberalism]]==

Complementarians such as Grunden argue that "liberal Protestant denominations were the pioneers of evangelical feminism, and that evangelical feminists today have adopted many of the arguments
earlier used by theological liberals to advocate the ordination of women and to reject male headship in marriage." And in addition, "that many prominent evangelical feminist writers today advocate
positions that deny or undermine the authority of Scripture, and many other egalitarian leaders promote their books", with recent trends suggesting that egalitarianism is heading toward
a denial of anything uniquely masculine, and toward "an endorsement of God as Mother, and ultimately an endorsement of the moral legitimacy of homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/images/jbmw_pdf/9_1/ef_new_path.pdf</ref>

As is the case with the latter issue, the traditional position may often be minimized or censured by liberals and their institutions and churches. In "Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path to Liberalism?, Grunden recalls a letter received in May 1987 from a New Testament professor at the (formerly conservative) Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. As a result of presenting the traditional position as part of a course on the Pastoral Epistles, the professor reported, "For two and a half weeks I was slandered up and down campus. I was the major subject on the declaration board, etc. It was a real mess. . . . The vast majority of the letters were from students who were not in the class. . . ." The Womenʼs Concerns Committee sent a letter to all his students, arguing against him being allowed to teach on this position, and that they would seek to censor any further teaching along traditional lines of interpretation. The dean never said that anything was mishandled except in regards to professor being allowed to teach what he thought, and accused him of presenting his personal views with more force than the other views.<ref>Grunden, ''Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path to Liberalism?'', p. 37, Personal letters from William D. Mounce May 14, and July 23, 1987.</ref>

==Historical position==
It is is well evidenced that the traditional position was that which is now called Complementarianism.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/1Cor.11+14.html#Commentaries</ref> In no place in the Scriptures is it established that women were priests in Israel or pastors of a New Testament church. Later, notable ancient authorities upheld the traditional position of male headship in church and home. [[Protestant]] churches likewise have historically upheld the traditional position from the time of the [[Reformation]], though later some exceptions would begin to be seen among certain Pentecostal churches. Female pastoral ordination began to be most prevalent within churches in [[liberal Christianity]].

[[Origen]] (AD 185-254) stated that,
<blockquote>
Even if it is granted to a woman to show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Miriam the prophetess spoke, she was leading a choir of women ... For [as Paul declares] "I do not permit a woman to teach," and even less "to tell a man what to do." <ref>Origen, Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios</ref>
</blockquote>

Nineteenth century Christian historian [[Philip Schaff]] records the teaching of early church fathers of the third and fourth century, stating in regards to 1 Cor. 14: 34,35,
<blockquote>
We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church, but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach,.. <ref>Schaff, ANF07: ''ANF07: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily</ref>
</blockquote>

In commenting on the same verses, [[Baptist]] theologian Dr. [[John Gill]] (1690 - 1771) states,
<blockquote>
In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-34.html Gill, 1 Corinthians 14:34</ref>
</blockquote>

Likewise Presbyterian theologian and Bible commentator [[Albert Barnes (theologian)|Albert Barnes]] (1798 –1 870) stated,

<blockquote>
No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1Ti_2:11-12...

This evidently and obviously refers to the church assembled for public worship, in the ordinary and regular acts of devotion. There the assembly is made up of males and females, of old and young, and there it is improper for them to take part in conducting the exercises. But this cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is improper for females to speak or to pray in meetings of their own sex, assembled for prayer or for benevolence; nor that it is improper for a female to speak or to pray in a Sunday School.<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/barnes/ntnotes.x.xiv.xxxiv.html Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible], 1 Cor. 14:34,35</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Matthew Henry]] (1662 – 1714) in his extensive commentary, entertains allowing “praying, and uttering hymns inspired” by women, as such “were not teaching”.<ref>http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=014</ref>

Nineteenth century Congregationalist A. Hastings Boss, D.D., writing in 1870 in the ''Bibliotheca sacra and theological review'', found no sanctioned “instance in the Bible of a woman's speaking in public”, in that of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and stated that
<blockquote>
If these prophetesses had each been called to public speaking, they would have been exceptions to the general rule, in striking contrast with the conduct of all other women under the law. Certainly no rule could have been or can now be founded upon these exceptional cases.

Joel predicts [Joel 2:28-32] and Peter quotes [Acts 2:17-21] that "in the last days" God's Spirit should lead "daughters" and hand-maidens," as well as men, to "prophesy"; but neither prophet nor apostle specifies any particular place, as the church, in which it should be done. Now Paul nowhere forbids women to prophesy, except " in the churches." They could have exercised their gift in private, or in a congregation of women, as did the four virgin daughters of Philip...A prophetess would have had enough to do among her own sex, without speaking in the assemblies.
</blockquote>

Boss also concluded that Gal. 3:28 is not applicable to the issue of women speaking in the assemblies, due to it having to do with salvation, not positions in service, “that salvation by faith is the same to all mankind, whatever be their race, condition, or sex, though natural distinctions still exist in full force.” He did not, however, see any restrictions on women singing, and also allowed for women teaching out of necessity, if competent men were not to be had. Boss, ''The silence of women in the churches —objections considered,''<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=8VsQAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA740&dq=%22silence+in+the+churches%22&output=html_text] Article viii; Bibliotheca sacra and theological review, Volume 27, pp. 739-763</ref>

The Presbyterian quarterly, April, 1889, in examining both 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 11-15, stated,
<blockquote>
As early as the year 1832, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in this country, in a pastoral letter to the churches in reference to dangers to be avoided in revivals, calls attention to a tendency then just beginning to appear, and uses this strong language (Baird, Digest, p. 220), "Meetings of pious women by themselves for conversation and prayer, whenever they can conveniently be held, we entirely approve. But let not the inspired prohibitions of the great apostle of the Gentiles, as found in his Epistles to the Corinthians and to Timothy, be violated. To teach and exhort, or to lead in prayer in public and promiscuous assemblies, is clearly forbidden to women in the holy oracles.".<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=nUYUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA165&dq=%22silence+in+the+churches%22&lr=&output=html_text “Women in the church,” The Presbyterian quarterly], Volume 3, NO. 8.- April, 1889. pp. 166-179</ref>
</blockquote>

Evangelical Baptist minister, teacher and author, [[John F. MacArthur]] Jr. (1939 —) affirms the basic traditional view, stating in regards to 1 Corinthians 11:5,

<blockquote>
The mention of women's praying and prophesying is sometimes used to prove that Paul acknowledged the right of their teaching, preaching, and leading in church worship. But he makes no mention here of the church at worship or in the time of formal teaching. Perhaps he has in view praying and prophesying in public places, rather than in the worship of the congregation. This would certainly fit with the very clear directives in 1 Corinthians (14:34) and in his first letter to Timothy (2:12) ... Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip's four daughters (Acts 21:9), but they are normally not to prophesy in the meetings of the church where men are present. <ref>John MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), pp. 256-7.</ref>
</blockquote>

Post Reformation authorities provide the most extensive account of the majority position regarding the role of female leadership. While they saw injunctions against ordination of women as clear, they found more challenging to what degree silence was enjoined upon women in the formal assembly. <ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Notes_1Cot.11+14.html Commentaries]</ref>

==See also==

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

==External links==

* [http://www.cbmw.org/Articles The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, articles]
* [http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/evangelical_feminism.pdf Wayne Gruden, ''Evangelical Feminism & Biblical truth'']
* [http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html Are Women Pastors Biblical?]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/women.html Women in the Bible]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Rotten borough

2010-05-15T08:08:15Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Rotten boroughs''' were districts in [[FAGGOTIA|England]] in the early 1800s in which relatively few residents had the power to elect a representative with the same vote as much bigger districts. This gave the residents of the rotten boroughs greater relative voting power.

For example, [[Newtown]] (located on the [[Isle of Wight]] in Britain) had been a thriving market town but by 1832 it consisted merely of a village of 14 houses. Worse, there was no secret ballot then, so it was common for one man, the patron, to control all the votes.

In the Reform Bill of 1832, [[Parliament]] redistricted the cities to eliminate rotten boroughs to reflect the growing and shifting populations.

[[Category:British Politics]]

Chemical weapon

2010-05-15T08:07:17Z

Thevoiceofreason:

A '''Chemical weapon''' is a weapon, usually in gas or liquid form, that releases toxic chemicals when exploded. The most well known chemical weapon, Mustard Gas, was used extensively during [[A HORRIBLE MISTAKE|World War Two]]. Other types include sarin gas and BZ.<ref>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Weapons]]

Constitutional Courts

2010-05-15T08:06:12Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Constitutional Courts''' are courts created by [[Congress]] under Article three of the [[ATHEIST GARBAGE|United States Constitution]]. Their judges serve for life.

An example of a Constitutional Court is the [[Supreme Court]].<ref>US Government and Politics</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]

World History Homework Ten Answers - Student Seventeen

2010-05-15T08:04:57Z

Thevoiceofreason:

== Jonathan R. ==

'''1. When and where was the [[START OF THE SECULAR REVOLT|Industrial Revolution]]?''' It started in the early 1700s, in [[England]], and developed fully by 1760, but some historians credit the iron industry in [[China]] under the Song dynasty and the textile industry in [[India]] as the precursors of the [[Industrial Revolution]].

:Correct. Note that the Industrial Revolution lasted in England until 1840.

'''2. Pick your two favorite scientists or mathematicians from the 1800s and explain what you like about them.'''
Louis Pasteur. I have always been a fan of him, even before learning much history (to tell the truth, I learned about him from a science-based cooking show), and I enjoy hearing about all the accomplishments that he has. I actually wasn’t sure if he was a [[Christian]] before, but now I am.

Marie Curie. I find her interesting because she discovered [[radioactivity]] and used gamma and x-rays from [[radium]] for x-ray imaging. No one knew the real danger of [[radioactivity]] back then and it was actually considered healthy to be around it. This brought in a large amount of consumer products that contained [[radioactive]] material, which is generally a bad idea.

:The dangers of radioactivity are overhyped; it's brought far more good than harm. Excellent answer regardless.

'''3. Do you think the [[Industrial Revolution]] was good or bad, and why?''' I think it was mostly good. It was good because it made it easier to produce goods at a lower cost, but, like [[inflation]], too much of this can be a very bad thing indeed.

:Superb, though I think the Industrial Revolution was far better than inflation is!

'''H2. What is your view of [[imperialism]], and whether it is sometimes good?''' This is a very subjective question, because how good or bad whatever is influencing something is, is greatly reliant on what the motives are. Picture it like this; [[imperialism]] is like a car going very fast: if there is a criminal in that car, well then it’s just his get-away car…but if there’s a police officer in that car, he can have a positive effect.

:Interesting answer! May use as a model.

'''5. What is [[imperialism]]? Describe the four patterns of [[imperialism]].''' [[Imperialism]] is the influencing (cultural, religious, etc.) of one country by another. The [[imperialism]] between [[England]] and [[America]] in the 1600-1700s was in the form of [[Mercantilism]], in which the mother country would buy raw goods from its colonies, fabricate them into other objects, and sell them to other countries.

The four patterns of [[imperialism]] are:

• Establishing colonies, then the mother country would influence them.

• Then there are protectorates, where a larger country would protect a smaller one, sort of like a good big brother.

• Another lesser-known form of [[imperialism]] is the “spheres of influence”, in which one country has special trading privileges over another.

• Last but not least, there was “economic [[imperialism]]”, where an outside influence controls a private business in another country.

:Correct.

'''6. Describe an aspect of [[Africa]] in the 1800s, such as an example of [[imperialism]].''' An example of imperialism in [[Africa]] was by the King Leopold II of [[Belgium]], where he exploited [[Africa]] for rubber, put large plantations, and made natives work for unreasonably low wages. On top of all of this, they renamed this region the Belgian Congo.

:Superb.

'''H6. Discuss any aspect of the lecture.''' [[Dimitri Mendeleev]] was a [[Russian]] [[chemist]] who put together the [[periodic table]] which is still used today. He not only put it together, but he accounted for gaps in which [[elements]] that were not discovered yet would go, he went even further when he predicted the properties of these [[elements]] using the periodic law. An example of this was Mendeleev’s new [[element]], ekaaluminum (Ea), which is what we know as [[gallium]] (Ga) today: his predicted [[atomic mass]] was 69, the actual [[atomic mass]] is 69.7. His predicted [[density]] was 6.0 g/cm3, the actual [[density]] is 5.9 g/cm3. I am amazed at the accuracy of these predictions, and in honor of his contributions, they named an [[element]] after him: [[Mendelevium]] (Md).

:Superb answer! Will use as a model!

:Terrific homework answers, including two model answers. 70/70.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

[[Category:World History lectures]]

Medellin v. Texas

2010-05-15T08:03:20Z

Thevoiceofreason:

In '''''Medellin v. Texas''''', 76 U.S.L.W. 4143 (Mar. 28, 2008), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that neither a decision by the [[International Court of Justice]] nor a memorandum issued by President [[THE ANGEL GABRIEL|George W. Bush]] constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions.

Specifically, Petitioner Jose Ernesto Medellin, an [[illegal alien]], was a member of the "Black and Whites" gang who was convicted of the rape and brutal murder of 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena while they were walking home.

Medellin was given the [[Miranda warning]], and then confessed to the crime. But he was not advised of a right to consult with the Mexican consulate prior to being interrogated by police. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or Convention), Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U.S. T. 77, T. I. A. S. No. 6820, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention (Optional Protocol or Protocol), Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U.S. T. 325, T. I. A. S. No. 6820, which were ratified by [[United States Senate]] in 1969, if a person detained by a foreign country "so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State" of such detention, and "inform the [detainee] of his righ[t]" to request assistance from the consul of his own state. Art. 36(1)(b), id., at 101.

The [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ), located in the Hague, is a tribunal established pursuant to the United Nations Charter to adjudicate disputes between member states. In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31) (Avena), that tribunal considered a claim brought by Mexico against the United States. The ICJ held that, based on violations of the Vienna Convention, 51 named Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their state-court convictions and sentences in the United States. This was so regardless of any forfeiture of the right to raise Vienna Convention claims because of a failure to comply with generally applicable state rules governing challenges to criminal convictions.

The Court held the Vienna Convention treaty was not "self-executing" and thus does not preempt domestic criminal law. Medellin therefore did not have a right under the treaty and his [[death penalty]] was affirmed.

Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote the opinion for the 6-3 court. Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] wrote a concurrence in which he noted that the [[Law of the Sea Treaty]] was not governed by this decision because it does have a self-executing proceeding:

: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Annex VI, Art. 39, Dec. 10, 1982, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103-39, 1833 U. N. T. S. 570 ("[D]ecisions of the [Seabed Disputes] Chamber shall be enforceable in the territories of the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the enforcement is sought").

Justice Stevens also noted that "Congress has passed implementing legislation to ensure the enforcement of other international judgments, even when the operative treaty provisions use far more mandatory language than 'undertakes to comply.'"

Justices [[Stephen Breyer]], [[David Souter]] and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] dissented.

== Cert. Petition ==

'''''Medellin v. Texas''''' presented a question on [[certiorari]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] about [[globalism]]:<ref>Medellin v. Texas, No. 06-984. Certiorari granted April 30, 2007. Ruling below: 206 S.W.3d. 584 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).</ref>

*Is a state court obligated to obey a memo from the U.S. President directing it to follow an International Court of Justice ruling on the rights of foreign nationals arrested and prosecuted in the United States?

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Center (group theory)

2010-05-15T08:01:52Z

Thevoiceofreason:

The '''center''' of a [[DEVIL WORSHIPPERS|group]] G is the set of all elements which [[Commutativity|commute]] with every element of the group. That is, the center of G is <math>\{a \in G : ab=ba\ \forall b \in G\}</math>.

==External Links==
*[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GroupCenter.html Center] on MathWorld
[[Category:Algebra]]

Lemonade

2010-05-15T08:00:37Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Lemonade''', in the United States, is a sweet beverage composed of [[Table sugar|sugar]], lemon juice, and water. Lemonade is usually served chilled, often over [[ice]] and sometimes with a slice of [[lemon]].

In [[FAGLAND|Britain]], lemonade is a [[carbonated]] lemon or lemon-lime flavored soft drink, which can be clear (e.g. Sprite® or R Whites®) or cloudy (e.g. traditional lemonades). As well as being drunk on its own, this sort of lemonade can be mixed with [[beer]] to make a [[shandy]], added to [[wine]] and other ingredients to make the [[Spanish]] drink [[sangria]], or served as a mixer with [[spirits]].

[[Category:Beverages]]

DuckDuckGo

2010-05-15T07:59:14Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Duck Duck Go''' is a general purpose [[REMEMBER THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE WHILE USING GOOGLES|search engine]] with a focus on user experience, founded by the company [[Chief Executive Officer|CEO]], [[Gabriel Weinberg]].<ref>[http://duckduckgo.com/Gabriel_Weinberg Duck Duck Go (Founder and CEO)]</ref><ref>Gabriel Weinberg. [http://www.altsearchengines.com/2009/04/15/a-greeting-from-gabriel-weinberg-of-duckduckgo/ A greeting from Gabriel Weinberg of Duck Duck Go]</ref> Duck Duck Go company headquarters is based out of Valley Forge, [[Pennsylvania]]. The company business plan is to allow users to find the most relevant information related to their search topic, faster, and without all the "garbage" of search result pages found in other search engines.<ref>CJ. [http://www.scienceforseo.com/search-engines/duck-duck-go/ Duck Duck Go!], ''Science for SEO'', March 2009.</ref>

==Search Goals==
The primary goal of Duck Duck Go is to give users the information they're looking for faster and with less mental effort. The second goal is to help users find related information they might not otherwise have thought of. Duck Duck Go offers links to related topics, and it also has category pages that group topics with similar concepts.<ref name=pandia>[http://www.pandia.com/sew/1596-duck-duck-go.html New search engne Duck Duck Go has less spam and more content], pandia.com.</ref>

==Uniqueness==
The Pennsylvania-based search startup boasts "less garbage" than the big search engines, and better at avoiding on dead-end links.<ref name=fast>Chris Dannen. [http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/chris-dannen/techwatch/skip-google-and-try-these-search-engines Skip Google, and Try These Search Engines], ''Fast Company'', April 14, 2009.</ref>

===Google versus DuckDuckGo===
Major differences between Duck Duck Go and its primary competitors, [[Google]] and [[Yahoo!]], include variations in each User Interface, and the algorithms the corporations use to 'fetch' information from the Internet. Duck Duck Go includes ''Zero-click Information'', Category Pages, ambiguous keyword detection, simpler links, topic detection, and overall much less spam; Duck Duck Go provides relevant information, faster. This information includes topic summaries, images and related topics, and often answers search queries directly.<ref name=differences>[http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-google-and-duckduckgo/ Difference Between Google and DuckDuckGo]</ref>

===Search result innovations===
The ''Zero-click Info'' section, following a search term request, clicks on the top links for users, and then pulls out snippet information from the site that apply to the specific search. It's intended to provide users the ability to learn about a search topic without having to click the link.<ref name=pandia/>

Other unique features include "Category Pages," which group topics about similar concepts, and "[[Disambiguation]] Pages" in front of search result pages where applicable. An ambiguous search term with many meanings (for example, "[[apple]]"), Duck Duck Go asks the user what meaning they want, and then displays results (and ''Zero-click Info'') that is more targeted to that particular topic. For searches that contain topics within it, Duck Duck Go will detect those topics and similarly adjust search results to target them in particular.<ref name=differences/>

===Spam solution===
Duck Duck Go partnered with [[The Parked Domains Project]], which regularly crawls the [[World Wide Web|Web]] and marks [[spam]] and parked domains; Duck Duck Go omits all domains marked as spam. The search engine also uses human policed sources like [[Wikipedia]] and [[Conservapedia]], placing links from these sources (note not just to them, but from them), above algorithmically generated links. The CEO, Gabriel Weinberg, explained, "We've gone out and found entries in about a hundred other human-powered sites that are policed for spam. We use their APIs and extract the info. [...] As a result, our links are doubly controlled for spam."<ref name=fast/>

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://duckduckgo.com/ Official Site]
* [http://duckduckgo.com/blog/ Duck Duck Blog]

[[category:Technology]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Information technology]]

Winnipeg

2010-05-15T07:57:25Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Winnipeg''' is the capital and largest city of [[Manitoba]], a province of [[SATANIA|Canada]]. The city is north of the geographical center of North America, and is the "Gateway to the West" in Canada, were the Prairies open up from the Canadian Shield.

==Winnipeg Sports Franchises ==
see [[Canadian sports]]
*Winnipeg [[Blue Bombers]] ([[CFL]] [[Football]])
*Winnipeg [[Jets]] ([[NHL]]) ([[Hockey]]) - Until 1996 Winnipeg had an NHL team, however due to economic circumstances and an attempt to grown interest in the Southern United States the team moved to [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] and become the [[Phoenix Coyotes]]. There is however considerable interest to bring NHL Hockey back to Winnipeg. Currently the Manitoba Moose, a minor league team, play in the MTS Centre, where a team may one day return to Winnipeg.

[[category:Canadian Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Talk:McDonaldization

2010-05-15T07:56:27Z

Thevoiceofreason:

==THIS IS A GOOD ARTICLE==
IT SHOWS CONSERVATIVES HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR NOT FOUND IN GODLESS ATHEISTS. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

Sez who? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT) , ''longing for a citation.''
:I agree, this is someone's made up term. Someone should mark for deletion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Heard of it before. My dad and i were talking economics and he told me a lil bit about it. Ever heard of de-Stalinazation? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:It is still a slang term and we shouldn't encourage people to throw it around like it's a real word.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I suppose my point, which I didn't make clear (sowwies!) is: no citation, no real explanation, no history. There are stubs, and then there are STUBS like this one. Whoever is passionate about this article existing should really get in here and make something out of it. However, based on the Admin's "encyclopedia" test as used elsewhere, it seems to me this doesn't really belong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

McDonaldization

2010-05-15T07:55:19Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''McDonaldization''' is a term invented by author [[George Ritzer]] in his book, ''The McDonaldization of Society''. Ritzer argues that the [[SATANIC CHURCH OF THE WESTERN WORLD|McDonald's]] business model [[rationalize]]s, that is, breaks down a given task into its most fundamental parts then creating [[logic]]al, consistent rules to find the most efficient method for completing each task. He argues that [[over-rationalization]] can lead to irrational outcomes. Ritzer argues that McDonalization's focus on [[efficiency]], calculability, predictability, and control leads to irrationality, de-skilling, and "consumer workers" (that is, consumers doing part of the work usually done by the company, such as taking the trash to the receptacle). <ref>McDonaldization.com [http://www.mcdonaldization.com/whatisit.shtml What Is McDonaldization?]</ref>
[[Image:McDonalds-1973.jpg|thumb|290px]]
==Cultural impact==
see [[Hamburger]]

But Americans have mixed feelings about it: is it a robust, succulent spheroid of fresh ground beef, the birthright of red-blooded citizens, providing good jobs for teenagers and a boost to the national economy? or is the Big Mac, mass-produced to industrial specifications and served as junk food by wage slaves to an obese population? Is it cooking or commodity? An icon of freedom or the quintessence of conformity?<ref> Josh Ozersky, ''The Hamburger: A History'' (2008), </ref>

Along with [[Coca-Cola]], the hamburger was once disdainfully regarded by many Europeans as the epitome of low cultural taste. With the advent of mass marketing from imitators of McDonald's such as Burger King, however, hamburgers have now spread around the world and, with variations, are consumed in every culture. Indeed the ''Economist'' magazine uses the price of a Big Mac to compare the price levels of different economies because it is the single most nearly standardized product in most countries around the globe.

Ritzer (2000) argues that McDonald's has succeeded so well because it offers consumers, workers, and managers a maximum degree of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control through non-human technology. These factors comprise a rational system, as first proposed by the German sociologist [[Max Weber]]. As with Weber's "iron cage of rationality," there is also a negative side to McDonaldization. Ritzer labels this "the irrationality of rationality", meaning that a rational system can produce a hail of irrational effects, from environmental damage to dehumanization of the workplace.<ref> (Ritzer, 2000, pp. 16-18</ref> Watson (2006) points out that East Asian patrons often transform their neighborhood McDonald's into a local institution similar to a leisure center or a youth club.
==See also==
*[[Burger King]]
*[[Chip shop]]
*[[Domino's Pizza]]
*[[Fast food]]
*[[Hamburger]]
*[[In-n-Out Burger]]
*[[McDonald's]]
*[[Papa John's Pizza]]
*[[Subway (restaurant)]]
*[[Taco Bell]]
*[[Wendy's]]
*[[White Castle]]

==Bibliography==
*Barber, Benjamin. ''Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World.'' New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
* Debres, Karen. "Burgers for Britain: A Cultural Geography of McDonald's UK," ''Journal of Cultural Geography,'' Vol. 22, 2005 [http://www.questia.com/read/5011334315?title=Burgers%20for%20Britain%3a%20A%20Cultural%20Geography%20of%20McDonald's%20UK online edition]
* Love, John F. ''McDonald's: Behind The Arches'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/McDonalds-Behind-John-F-Love/dp/0553347594/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209378488&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Ozersky, Josh. ''The Hamburger: A History'' (Yale University Press: 2008), 160pp [http://www.amazon.com/Hamburger-History-Icons-America/dp/0300117582/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226971694&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritzer, George. ''The McDonaldization of Society'' (2000), 278pp
* Ritzer, George. ''McDonaldization: The Reader'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/McDonaldization-Reader-George-Ritzer/dp/1412926009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209415819&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Royle, Tony. ''Working for McDonald's in Europe: The Unequal Struggle?'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/read/107936527?title=Working%20for%20Mcdonald's%20in%20Europe%3a%20%20The%20Unequal%20Struggle%3f online edition]
* Watson, James. ''Golden Arches East: McDonald's in East Asia,'' (2nd ed. 2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Arches-East-McDonalds-Second/dp/0804749892/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209415922&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>
[[Category:Meat]]
[[Category:Fast Foods]]
[[Category:Restaurants]]

==References==
<references />

[[category:industry]]
[[category:sociology]]

Bill Bolling

2010-05-15T07:53:39Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''William T. "Bill" Bolling''' (born June 15, 1957) is a [[JESUS|Republican Party]] politician and the current [[Lieutenant Governor]] of [[Virginia]], having been elected in 2005 and reelected in 2009.

Bolling's first elected office was in 1991 when he served on the Hanover County Board of Supervisors. He was elected to the Senate of Virginia in 1995 and served as Chairman of the Joint Republican Caucus and the Virginia Republican Senatorial Committee.

[[Category:United States Lieutenant Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Mafofamide

2010-05-15T07:52:32Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Mafofamide''' is a form of cyclophosphamide that can be administered as an intrathecal infusion. Mafosfamide is being studied as an anti-[[ATHEIST KILLER|cancer]] drug. It belongs to the family of [[drugs]] called alkylating agents.
[[category:medicine]]

Cloak

2010-05-15T07:48:42Z

Thevoiceofreason:

A '''cloak''' is a voluminous outer garment, without sleeves or armholes, similar in style to a cape. It is now very rarely seen, although sticklers for tradition may wear an 'opera cloak' to first night performances of [[theatre]] or [[opera]]. The term cloak survives, however, as a [[metaphor]] for something that serves to obscure. Thus a thief might operate 'under the cloak of darkness', or a [[FAGGOT|Democratic]] Presidential candidate's true intentions be hidden 'by a cloak of lies'.

[[Category:Clothing]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Thrasymedes

2010-05-15T07:47:29Z

Thevoiceofreason:

'''Thrasymedes''' was a son of [[Nestor]], co-commander with his brother [[Antilochus]] of the [[Pylians]] during the [[FAGGOT FIGHT|Trojan War]].

[[category:Trojan War]]

Reformation Terms M

2010-05-15T07:46:08Z

Thevoiceofreason:

World History Homework Five Answers - Student Fifteen

2010-05-15T07:44:27Z

Thevoiceofreason:

IsaacZ

1. [[THE SATANIST BIBLE|The Five pillars of Islam]] are Submission to Allah, Prayer to Allah, Fasting for the whole month of Ramadan, Alms giving, and a Pilgrimage to Mecca made at least once in one's lifetime.

:Good, but note that fasting is during daylight hours only.

2 The main reason that Islam is different from Christianity is the Fact that they do not believe in loving their God nor do they believe that their God Loves them.

:Fascinating answer. For an alternative view, see this interpretation of the Koran:[http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/whom-Allah-loves.htm]

3. Charlemagne is my favorite because of his ability to keep some of the Roman empire intact and to keep the barbarians away from Rome.

:Excellent.

4.Feudalism was a good method because it created a good christian community and kept everyone happy.

:OK, not sure absolutely everyone was happy (serfs for bad lords weren't), but it may have maximized happiness among serfs, or faith.

5. The Suunis were a large group inside of Islam and were not as strict as the smaller group of Shiites

:Good. Note: "Sunnis", not "Suunis".

6. I found it interesting that Iran was not completely Islam as it is normally referred to as.

:But it's very close to completely Islam. Still, your observation is a good one.

7. The Aztecs were a warlike culture who made Human sacrifices.

:Good, but I asked for four. (Minus 3).

:Good effort. 67/70.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:09, 7 March 2009 (EST)
[[Category:World History lectures]]

Talk:Sola scriptura

2010-05-15T07:43:06Z

Thevoiceofreason:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
==AMEM==
TRUE WORDS ARE SPOKEN IN THIS ARTICLE. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

Athens and Jerusalem

2010-05-15T07:39:49Z

Thevoiceofreason:

[[Philosopher]]s view [[Athens]] and [[Jerusalem]] as the foundational pillars of Western civilization. While Athens represents [[FAGGOTRY AND ATHEISM|reason]], Jerusalem stands for [[revelation]].
[[Image:Jerusalem Ugglan 1.jpg|left|thumb|290px|Solomon's Temple.]]
[[Image:Western-north corner of Parthenon.jpg|right|thumb]]

[[category: philosophy]]
[[category: Ancient History]]

Talk:Socialism

2010-05-15T07:35:36Z

Thevoiceofreason:

==IT BRINGS A TEAR TO MY EYE==
THAT THIS IDEOLOGY IS BECOMING CLOSER TO A REALITY UNDER THE REIGN OF BAROKE HUSSEIN OBOMBER. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

"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)

== 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)

:: 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.<ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm</ref>

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)

==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)

Talk:Capitalism

2010-05-15T07:33:14Z

Thevoiceofreason:

==HOW CAN SCUM NOT ACCEPT THIS IDEOLOGY==
CAPITALISM IS AS CLOSE TO THE WORD OF GOD AS POSSIBLE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT IT DESERVES ETERNAL HELLFIRE. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

Iran is non-capitalist? Excuse me?

"Anti Semitic"? You _are_ aware that Karl Marx was Jewish, right? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
*He was ethnically Jewish yes. However, his parents were converts to Christianity. He was not raised Jewish and wrote many anti-semitic essays. He was a self-hating Jew! Google it. -- [[User:CoulterMan|CoulterMan]] 18:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut:

:an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated

It's still capitalism, even if the government runs some businesses. There is no bright line of division between free market capitalism and a totally planned economy. Even under the Soviet Union, there was a thriving black market. Maybe we need an [[economic spectrum]] to describe the gradations of control. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:I endores this view and beleive Marxist rhetoric needs to be kept out of this article. Capitalism is not an ideology, unlike Marxism, and there is no comparison between the two on that basis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'd argue it is, but its tenets are rarely articulated. Anyone want to take a crack at it? (The big one seems to be that ANYTHING [[Enron|a corporation]] does to make money is inherently good.)
:::Don't bother. Gorby tried to salvage what he could, and still is a convinced Communst, but the rest of the planet has rejected the flawed notion that Communism is a completing "ideology" to Captialism. Please, abandon this moot point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

* "It's still capitalism, even if the government runs some businesses." No it isn't!

"There is no bright line of division between free market capitalism and a totally planned economy." Yes, there is! -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 22:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

HEE HEE! [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 17:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:The image is to demonstrate the absurdity of image choice at [[Socialism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, I'll play your little game. Thank you for the BBC link, it really was very interesting reading, and something I've wanted to read for a long time. You, sir, have the floor now. Please support any claim you wish to make. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::My claim is that if you wish to make a completely inaccurate generalization about a very broad and diverse ideology, that kind of logic should apply to all ideologies. You put socialism in the worst possible light, so I think it is only fair to show capitalism in the worst possible light. Do you disagree? Is there some sort of double standard taking place here? I would propose an image of, say, [[Alexander Hamilton]] for the capitalism article, and [[Karl Marx]] for the socialism article. Both are extremely relevant figures. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:51, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::(A) I disagree with the premise, "Capitalism is an ideology." Now, it is up to you, using an argument or sources other than Marxist, to prove that it is an ideology. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Right now, you need to support your fundamental claim, using this text, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/209742.stm], for the statement,
::::''"Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist. Pinochet murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism."'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't care what term we use to define it; Capitalist and Socialism are two different ways of performing the same task. Whether it is an ideology, a way of life, an economic system, a belief... I don't care. Your attempts to pull the argument away from the core issue will not work. The issue at hand is the use of images, not whether it is an ideology. And I won't be using that source anymore, as I think we can both agree on the basics;
:::::*Chilean leftists attempted to promote communism (a form of socialism, not synonymous with socialism)
:::::*Pinochet murdered 3,000 leftists, to make sure that a capitalist economy stayed in place.
:::::A CIA report: [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB212/19731027%20Intelligence%20Report.pdf]
:::::And for the record, I despise socialism; the basic ideal it promotes cannot be successfully attained, and it presents no motivation for work. I do, however, think that certain elements of socialist countries - say, socialized health care - would be of great benefit to America.
:::::Once again, the question dodging needs to stop. Capitalism and Socialism are both, let's say, "economic systems". Therefore, presenting capitalism in a strictly positive light, while presenting the absolute worst of socialism - dictators, fascists, and murderers - is a ridiculous double standard. I understand your personal objection to socialism, Rob, but that doesn't get to influence objective writing, correct? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::Ok, so (A) where in the CIA report can you support the claim,
::::::''Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist. Pinochet murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism." ''
::::::(B) Can we assume you are unable to support the claim, "Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist. Pinochet murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism," with the BBC cite, since you said, "I won't be using that source anymore", and will you remove it?

::::::(C) Hoji said, "Capitalist and Socialism are two different ways of performing the same task;" -- RobS does not agree with this.

::::::(D) Hoji said, "Capitalism and Socialism are both, let's say, 'economic systems';-- RobS does not agree with this either. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Let's try this a similar way:
:::::::I don't agree with your agreement on C or D. Would you like to define them in your own manner? I proposed a compromise; an image of Hamilton on this article, and an article of Marx at [[Socialism]]. We can work out the captions later. So, do you agree with the image choice, or would you like something different? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Hoji my good man, you are backpeddling. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Capitalism is an ideology; and I suspect you cannot do that without using Marxist sources. So, by default, I win, unless you wish to pursue it further.

::::::::I don't see the meaining or purpose of an image of Hamilton on this page. Capitalism is not hardly an ideology, or an article of faith that anyone puts personal sentiments or emotion on. Let's assume momentarily old earth creation theory & evolution are true, i.e. that the human speicies is 130,000 years old; guess what? Capitalism fed the human species from day one until now. And there simply is no other explanation as to how the human species has survived this long. You say Marxism (socialism/communism/whatever) is an "economic system;" I say bullrot. Capitalism kept the Soviet Union alive for 70 years, not Socialism (Communism or Liberalism or whatever). The Managers of the Soviet system exterminated the old owners of property (by "property" I am refering to "capital"), stole their assets, appointed themselves slave masters, and continued a capitalist regime with themselves in charge.

::::::::So you see my friend, while we can scientifically and academically pick Marx's ''Das Kapital'' apart, and demonstrate its flaws and failings, by contrast [[Adam Smith]]'s ''Wealth of Nations'' is not a textbook of ideology or a substitute for the Bible. It is rather like a Volvo repair manual, it gives a mechanical description of operations that allow the human species to survive in a civilized society. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::I am not trying to define capitalism as an ideology, I am trying to convince you, in a ridiculously off-topic argument, that the image currently in place is not accurate.
:::::::::So you wish to say that capitalism is ''not'' an ideology, but socialism is? You wish to define ''Das Kapital'' as an "alternative to the Bible"? You state that capitalism has kept humanity alive since day one?
:::::::::I'll indulge you and agree to that analysis of the situation. If socialism is an ideology, than communism is a ''type'' of socialism; like lassez-faire capitalism is a ''type'' of capitalism. Once again, trying to make "socialism" synonymous with "communism" is simply inaccurate. Including a picture of fascist dictators on the "socialism" article is simply wrong, and I believe you know this.
:::::::::You still attempt to change the subject, which remains the same; the image of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the [[Socialism]] article is misleading and inaccurate. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:30, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Ok, so we found areas of common understanding. I'll reserve comment on the statement "lassez-faire capitalism is a type of capitalism."

::::::::::As to the statement, ""Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist...murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism," your own friends contradict this premise right here in CP. [[Donald Kendall]] gives us an explanation of the Chilean coup:

:::::::::::''Allende's leftist regime was banning cola sales and other capitalist operations. These conspiracy theorists believe that Kendall used his influence with Nixon to persuade him to back the right-wing coup.
::::::::::Interesting entry; allegedly it had nothing to do with Capitalist/Communist, U.S./Soviet, left/right competetition. It was Coke/Pepsi capitalism, Coke being backed by Nixon & the U.S., Pepsi being the "national soda franchise" of the Soviet Union as the entry states. The godless Allende wanted to boot out Coca-Cola sales & let Soviet bottled Pepsi have a capitalist monopoly in Chile. And all this, it can be seen, came from a Marxist contributor here in Conservapedia.

::::::::::So, what evidence have you presented that is not simply another Marxist lie? To deny (a) the historic nature of the image in the Socialism article, or (b) the very name of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is disengeuous. As to the idea it's misleading: Would you agree the incessant, unending discussion of Strom Thurmond, David Duke, racism, and the GOP is misleading? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== FAR OFF POINT ==

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit. Webster's Dictionary

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

Concatenating the two, we get:
Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals absolutely own the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Based on that simplification, it's clear that there are no capitalist nations around.
Either corporations (who are creatures of government permission and do not absolutely own) or governments claim power and authority over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 14:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Communism

2010-05-15T07:31:26Z

Thevoiceofreason:

==THIS IDEOLOGY MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL==
COMMUNISTS ARE TRAITOROUS SCUM THAT SHOULD BE KICKED OUT OF THIS GREAT NATION. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

== Say something meaningful ==
I recently judged several exhibits for the national history day. These were not about Communism but instead about Adolf Hitler, though the problems they had are also here in this article about communism. The problem with all of them is that everyone thinks its sufficient to say that Hitler was evil to have said something meaningful. Obviously this is not enough. Everyone has said this there's no unique analysis in it or really an analysis at all. Its all just emotive. Likewise the problem with this article is that there really isn't much in the way of analysis. All that is said is communism bad (be verbs such as is are over rated) again and again and again. Yes there are facts and statistics and that's great but really i think you've crossed an academic line here where your no longer explaining why things are bad (or perhaps good if you were to be a communist though given the setting i find this to be unlikely) but are instead just asserting that they are along with a few statistics. What this article needs in an in depth explanation of how communism functions both theoretically and in the real world. Therese nothing here about Marx's philosophy (though the article on Marx is much better than this one). Communism means more than the Soviet Union and China. Also i think there needs to be a section on primal communism (hunter gatherers) and interpretations as to weather or not they count as a communist society.
:Primitive behaviour is strictly nothing to do with the Marxist-Leninist communism we treat here. I think that the points are adequately made that the materialist, atheist and dirigiste aspects of Communism appeal to those of little natural ability and enable them to gain coercive powers to destroy freedom. Hitler and the Nazis were forged in the same mould. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:15, 26 February 2009 (EST)

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::To Ed: see Engels’s letter to A. Bebel of March 18-28, 1875 (in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1955, p. 357), wherein Engels says the following:
<blockquote>
"As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom '''the state as such ceases to exist'''"
</blockquote>
::Therefore, it was the belief of Engels that the state would wither away under Communism. In fact it's pretty much common knowledge that this was what Marx and Engels were proposing. Of course, the difference is when this was put into practice. Nonetheless, the point remains that Marx et al ''did'' say that the state should wither away after the transitional period of a dictatorship of the people.

::Please respond to this, I'd like to hear your insights into this. [[User:Blake|Blake]] 12:59, 8 March 2010 (EST)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::To ThePantsMobile: you're not quite correct there actually. It's too simple to say Communism and Nazism are polar opposites. In fact, they have lots of things in common - one-party states, a monopoly of the means of communication, extensive surveillance, subjugation of the individual, etc. ''Economically speaking'', they are polar opposites. However, ''socially speaking'' they are very similar. A straight line with Communism at one end and Nazism at the other isn't very accurate, perhaps a horseshoe with them at either end would be better.

::To RobS: True, he is POV, but isn't that the point of Conservapedia? To be POV (though of course promoting a conservative viewpoint)? [[User:Blake|Blake]] 13:06, 8 March 2010 (EST)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mistake ==

There's a mistake in the artle. In the section headed "Demise of communism", it states that each country in the former communist bloc has reformed to capitalism. This is not true, as Moldova remains Communist (though an untotalitatian, democratic form).

I'm new-- hope i'm right in thinking i should bring this up on the talk page before doing any editing :) --Dollfuss

:Thanks for pointing it out. Do you happen to have a source that we could use? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/moldova.htm

http://www.allmoldova.com/index.php?action=viewdoc&id=1063305563&lng=eng

The first site is perhaps clearer, as the second site doesn't clarify that 'PCRM' stands for 'Party of Communists in the Republic of Moldova'. -- Dollfuss

:The phrase "reformed to capitalism" does not make sense. The opposite of communist [[totalitarianism]] would not be a [[economic]] system but a [[political]] one, i.e., [[Democracy]]. Perhaps you were writing from a Marxist perspective? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::The opposite of communism would be a state where a social class of workers do not own the means of production. Hence the opposite is capitalism. Don't confuse your personal ideology and definition of communism with that agreed upon by political scientists, philosophers, economists and the rest of people who've actually made significant study of what communism is and means. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==
This is more of an attack on the modern day attempts at implementing a communist system, than it is an informative page on the Communist system of political thought. There is a difference and I recommend creating an article dealing with political theory, as this page is fallacious and doesn't inform much on Communism at all.

== Theory Section ==

I've cleaned up the theory section as it was stocked with more than a few misconceptions [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:I reverted all your changes. For one thing, your comment about
::''countries commonly described as "communist,"''
:represents the usual quibble provided by communist apologists who refuse to judge Communism by its actual fruits.

:It doesn't matter what the "theory" is. The present article is not a critique of [[Marxism]] but about how actual Communist governments have behaved. Perhaps part of the evaluation of Communism (compared to democracy) should be about how the theory tends to be disregarded, distorted, or misused. It seems to be much harder to abuse democracy; maybe that's why God has blessed the United States of America so much.

:Some of your criticisms and other observations may be more useful in our [[Socialism]] article. You might write about the attempts to establish socialism in the USSR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

So your argument is that there's no place for an explanation of communist theory in the theory section of the page on communism?
For that matter, to evaluate communism "compared to democracy" is as nonsensical as evaluating capitalism "compared to democracy" or evaluating apples "compared to oranges."
You'll note I've made no attempt to hide or downplay the horrible atrocities of the USSR or others, but generally countries that have described themselves as communist have been autocratic dictatorships. How on earth does attempting to hide the distinction between what the theory prescribes and the actions of countries that claimed to be communist support the goal of creating "the trustworthy encyclopedia" ? It seems your reverts are based on personal ideology more than any supported fact, and worse yet, in terms of theory are quite completely wrong. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to "the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)" ([http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat source])

Essentially, you don't seem to actually understand what communism is. Instead, you seem insistent on spouting half-truths, complete fabrications and false tautologies. I suggest you find another moderator for this page if you are unwilling to better educate yourself on the matter. May I suggest an introduction to Political Science at your local college or university?
[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 12:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the current theory section:

Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable

"Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena."

:*This is false. The concept of communism dates back to at least the 6th century BC. Marxism is a political philosophy which seeks to implement communism. Marxism is based on Marx's theory of historical materialism, a materialist conception of history based on the analsys of labour and production.

"Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the public owns the "means of production"."

:*This is true.

"In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "dictatorship of the proletariat"."

:*This is riddled with errors, No country has had communism imposed upon it. Some countries have sought to implement communism, but invariably have become dictatorships with socialist economies. Dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT communism, and not synonymous with the nationalization of private enterprises.

{{QuoteBox|For Marx, the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto (1848) stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Marx used the expression very infrequently and when he did employ it, he appeared to understand the word ‘dictatorship’ as meaning a concentration of power or forces rather than as a repressive situation. A different model of transition is offered in The Civil War in France (1871) based upon the experience of the Paris Commune. It stressed the immediate dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The ‘commune’ and ‘dictatorship’ models coexist uneasily in Marx's work.

:-from the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics}}

This drives all market-based economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.

:*This might be supported if a communist country actually existed, but none has existed to date . In theory, the nationalization and merger of enterprises would increase inefficiency by eliminating redundancy. With an even distribution of wealth, shortages only occur if the total production of the nation falls.

"In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls."

:*This is true, but not related to communist theory, which is what this section is actually about.

"Members of the ruling party (see Nomenklatura) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see queuing)."

:*This has been true in some countries ruled by communist parties, but not all, and stands contrary to the aims and theory of communism.

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

:*This is true, although the use of supposedly here seems like a callous attempt to undermine the point.

"The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially atheist and attempted to suppress all religion."

:* This is mostly true, although you may wish to do some reading on the USSR's relationship with the orthodox church, as its considerably more nuanced than this phrase might indicate. However, this, once again, has nothing to do with communist theory.

"Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion."

:* Got any sources to support that?

"Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable Animal Farm."

:* It's not just left-wing critics. The very constitution of the USSR states that it is a socialist country, not a communist one.

"Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no incentive within the economic theory."

:* In the countries you describe as "communist," there is variation between wages of workers commensurate with ability. In a true communist society, there's no actual need for wages or money at all. This being said, you've limited yourself to the assumption that the personal accumulation of wealth is the only possible incentive in an economy.

"Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft."

:* I take it you did not actually read the quote from Marx.

{{QuoteBox|When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.}}

::Nothing is taken away, it's a change in the way property is generated.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I wish you would read my article, [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. We can cooperate better if you refrain from assuming I am arguing for something, or that I don't understand something.

I know there is a difference between Communism, the political system established in USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea etc. - and "[[communism (stateless society)|communism]]", the stateless society envisioned and/or predicted by Marx. The present article critiques big-C Communism on account of its utter failure to achieve small-c communism. Perhaps you felt I was ignoring the difference between the two terms?

If you want to work with me on this article, I hope you will join me in being consistent about the usage of the Big-C and small-c terms. It will only confuse the reader of we fail to distinguish between political systems created by Communist Parties and Workers Parties - and the stateless ideal society envisioned by Marx that would come after the socialist states created by the parties "withered away". Do you agree that there is a difference and that we should tell the reader clearly about it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:23, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'd also argue that you should distinguish between the oppressive failure Communist states such as Stalin's USSR, and the Democratic 'diluted' Communist nations such as Cyprus and Moldova today. They don't adher to strict collectivisation, but they aim to achieve more equality of wage and status in the existing system, as they agree with the theoretical Communism. PLEASE don't go and tar them with the same brush as the oppressive USSR. -- Dollfuss.

I'm not tarring anyone with a brush, but calling a spade a spade. A government based on Communist theories deserves to be called "Communist". Quibbles about whether that government has attained the professed ideal of Communists are unrelated to the type of government.

The real point here (and the [[elephant in the living room]]) is that no Communist government has come anywhere near to "achieving communism". Hence, the old Russian joke about the securest job in the Soviet Union ("waiting for communism to be achieved").

My '''critique''' of Communism is that it has absolutely no chance of achieving its stated ideal. It espouses violence to gain control over the means of production but has no provision for how the new rulers and masters would ever be motivated to give up their control voluntarily. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Neither Cyprus nor Moldova, with ruling Communist parties, indulge in violence to achieve their aims. Saying that all Communist parties do is a generalisation and a simplification. -- Dollfuss

== My edits a few minutes ago ==

I've reverted a couple of Jjameson's edits, and here I explain why.

He removed the claim that communism was atheistic, citing in his edit comment http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/fca5.html. This page doesn't, in fact, directly address that question, and I'm not sure why Jjameson thought it did. It does, however, implicitly ''support'' the claim that communism is atheistic:
{{QuoteBox|...Cabet's plan for a perfect utopian community based on the principles of evolutionary communism ... Cabet believed that environment determined human nature and that people, whom he saw as perfectible and rational, would produce a perfect society when placed in a perfect environment.}}
Evolution, believing that (only) the environment determines human nature, and that people could, without God, produce a perfect environment, are all atheistic ideas.

Jjameson was also a bit heavy-handed with the {{tl|fact}} tag, although looking through them, most of them are legitimate. So I only removed one. I hope to remove a couple more before too long, once I find a reference for a couple of quotes.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:38, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, I was trying quickly to find a source that supported that some christians (or, for that matter, any religious people) promote Communism. The search result seemed like that supported my claim, but I had not properly read the entire article. I am curious, however, how Wikipedia can have such a lengthy article on Christian Communism[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Communism] without such a thing existing. Perhaps I am being fooled by Wikipedia's liberal bias?[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 19:22, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd say that you've been fooled by Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias! More to the point, that there might be a Christian ''version'' of communism doesn't refute that communism, as invented, is inherently atheistic. A parallel is the existence of "theistic evolution", a view that says that God created by using a method (evolution) that was designed to explain life without God being required! The mere existence of a self-contradictory point of view does not refute that the views are contradictory.
:: Communism and Christianity do, in a sense, have a lot in common, which might go some way to explaining the existence of so-called Christian communism. As I saw an atheist write many years ago (this is from memory, not a direct quote), the difference between communism and Christianity is that communism is driven by force, whereas Christianity is driven by love. That is, communists (supposedly) share their wealth because they have to, whereas Christians share their wealth because they want to. The other big difference is the result: Communism fails economically, because it takes away the incentive to work. Christian countries succeed economically (and America is the classic example (over the long term)), because there is an incentive to work.
:: Wikipedia wouldn't compliment Christianity in this way, which is why you're unlikely to learn this from them.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is Communism Atheistic In Nature? ==

Of course it is. A lack religion is fundamental to the concept of Communism/Marxism. Sources have been provided, I don't see a need to edit war over it. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

This quote is from Karl Marx in his "Communist Manifesto", section II (Proletarians and Communists): [http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html]
:''"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

::Could that quote not be implying that all forms of religion are evil or wrong but instead imply that the government should have no hand in religion?

== Generalisation. ==

Ed Poor, please reply. I stated that it's just wrong to accuse every communist state of violence. Stalinist Russia may have indulged in Violence, but communist Cyprus and Moldova today aren't violent at all. It's just dishonest.

You might as well accuse Christian states of violence, citing the Christian Austria of May 1932- July 1943 as "proof" due to it's Christian ideology and violent repressive tendencies. -- Dollfuss.

*Dollfuss, please read our Conservapedia Commandments, which you are in violation of with your constant talk, talk, talk, and absolutely no substantive contributions. This is an encyclopedia project, a conservative, Christian friendly one, not a debating society or posting board. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Unexplained edit revert ==

I would like to kindly ask for an explanation for why somebody has a problem with me changing the sentence "It is based on Karl Marx's proposed establishment of a "classless society", but '''its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that''' no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal..." by removing the bolded portion. I was simply trying to make Conservapedia a better, more un-biased, place. If you could tell me what is wrong with that, I would greatly appreciate it. [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 23:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
:Sorry I didn't leave a revert reply. If it was bias, then I agree you were right. However, it is true and therefore it returned to the paragraph. Don't take offense, I appreciate your contributions here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
::First of all, thank you for that very civil response. However, I must point out that it seems to me to be an unfair statement. Mainly, it is because I feel that Communism was, in and of itself, not "bad", as it was trying to create a society where everybody was equal. The problem was that the governments who claimed to be Communist were not actually Communist, they distorted it hugely for their own gain. At the very least, could the portion in question be changed to "its philosophical basis is widely believed to be flawed, such that..."? [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 00:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I don't have a problem with that statement.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pros and Cons ==

Ok. I'll admit that COmmunism is not perfect, yet there are some pros,

1) cheap public services, Soviet Trains were much more effective and cheaper than American or European
2) Full employment
3) Brilliant education, I went to a cuban school, they have 100% literacy rate and are brilliant if you want to do medicine

----

Communism and racisim should bge included. Marx said that,"the classes and the races to weak to adapit to the new conditions must perish in the revolutionary holocoast. He belived that the Polish people had no reason to exisit. For information I would watch "The Soviet Story".
-jowns.

== Main Image ==

Somehow the image just doesn't seem to give readers a good view into communism. I think it could go better in the article about mass murder. What if we changed the picture to something more relevant about what communism is? A Picture of Stalin?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 12:09, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
:I agree...the "Goddess of Democracy" just doesn't convey the image of communism that should be here. Why not put in a pic of the Chinese kid facing down the tank? Or a pic of the Soviet gulags; or the hundreds of thousands of skeletons from the Cambodian killing fields; or the Berlin Wall. I think those would illustrate it much better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:25, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

== Communist purges ==

I just changed the text under the gulag photo to "victims of communist purges" as "victims of communism" just didn't sound very compelling. Purges gives a better impression of what those governments were all about.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

== Scripture ==

Does anyone have an example of the Scripture that communists quote being used? It just seems to take up space. If we put in an example that might make it a little more usefull in the article. Otherwise I have never heard this used in the defense of communism.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:48, 27 November 2009 (EST)

If no one has any interest in this section I am opting to remove it. Though I would like anyone of the opinion that we should keep it to say so. I do not think it benefits the article.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 12:37, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:The quotation is used a lot. It is an example of a major tactic of deceit used by Communists. Please do not delete it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Barack Obama and his minions ==

Aren't [[Barack Obama]] and his minions [[Nancy Pelosi]] and [[Harry Reid]] communists? They're trying to take over the auto industry, healthcare industry, banking industry, and insurance industry, which is communist style. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 17:53, 23 January 2010 (EST)
::well it's actually socialism, and it was George Bush who took over autos, banking and insurance. Obama wants healthcare, but he won't make it because his party just moved two notches to the right after the Mass. election. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:58, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::I wouldn't call Pelosi & Reid Obama's minions, they've been around alot longer than him, and are likely to remain past his term of office. Obama, it seems, is a bit player in the larger history of the CPUSA. A year ago the debate was whether he was a witting or unwitting ally of the movement. Apologists claimed he was just a dupe, but now we have more perspective. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::: Obama has nothing to do with the CPUSA, AFAIK, but it's true that Pelosi and Reid are both more influential forces within the Democrat hierarchy than Obama. He could win, that is what mattered. But he is an outsider to the DP hierarchy of power, and that's unlikely to change, at least in the short term. --[[User:BishoiH|BishoiH]] 18:15, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Obama has nothing to do with the CPUSA? See [[Frank Chapman]], for instance, published in the CPUSA official organ ''[[People's Daily World]]''. The [[Barack Hussein Obama]] article has at least two more direct cites the official CPUSA website, one about the 1000's of CPUSA community organizers working to get him elected, another written by the CPUSA's Education Committte Chairperson eulogizing Vernon Jarrett (father-in-law of high level Obama White House advisor Valeria Jarrett) who issued a clarion call on his deathbed to elect Barack Obama. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:57, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Here's the direct links: [[Barack_Hussein_Obama#Primary_election_.282004.29]]; [[Young_Communist_League#Barack_Obama]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:06, 23 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Abortion

2010-05-15T07:29:11Z

Thevoiceofreason:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==WE DO NOT NEED THIS KIND OF SUBJECT MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE==
THIS IS A GOOD, WHOLESOME WEBSITE. WE DO NOT NEED THIS GARBAGE TO POLLUTE THE MINDS OF YOUNG AMERICANS. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

== Pro-Abortion Distortion ... Rebutted ==
I wanted to know the process of abortion, not the pro-life opinion on abortion. I am pro-life, but this page does not describe the actual abortion itself.

As provided by the national cancer institute (the real one, not the name-hijacking national cancer institution of abortion) there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage]</ref> The positive cancer preventing attributes of birth are distinct from the causality of cancer by abortion. The studies indicate that women who have abortions and women who do not give birth are at equal risk of breast cancer.

: Your comment is misleading. Read the entry with an open mind. The evidence is overwhelming that abortion increases the pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer.

: There's over a billion dollars and other incentives to deceive the public into accepting abortion. Don't be taken in by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

"About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort." Why is this sentence in bold? It might be an important piece of evidence, but the statistics are not 100% perfect, nor is there an obvious conclusion to draw from it. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Also, why is there a picture of an ultrasound which supposedly pictures Jesus? What does that have to do with abortion? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
: From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 03:50, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

== Rename Article? ==
I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that.

==Typo(s)===
<blockquote>
At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.
</blockquote> [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 18:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs."

Conservapedia's article is like the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are bad. Stay away.''

Wikipedia's article is the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).''

Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==
'''

I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion. I think it is necessary to include a mention early on in the article to how the medical definition of abortion varies from the popular definition. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ardent liberals don't think anything should be a litmus test for conservatism or for Christianity for that matter. Liberals, are not exactly champions for restraint of any kind. Obama's massive spending is a fine example of this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:29, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

Northern Ireland: Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland (not as the article states 'legal but rare'). In common with other countries where abortion is illegal, allowances have been made where carrying the child to term would put the mother at too great a risk, and therefore an abortion may be performed. Women from Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, often find themselves in a situation where they 'get on the boat' and travel to England for an abortion instead.

:That's largely true. There are exceptions where abortions can be performed in Northern Ireland, basically for health reasons [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm]. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: "Health" exceptions are notoriously broad in some countries, and can even include "financial health." It is in the interests of the abortion industry to exaggerate its complaints about limitations on abortion in its desire to expand its business.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

* Support. I am also a Christian, and while I might agree with some of the views expressed in this article I recognise my opinions as one side of an argument. When an article is as biased as this is present it detracts from the factual nature. I propose this article is restructured to include more factual material, and what exists at present condensed into a section titled "moral issues with abortion".

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

By the same logic you have used in this article about breast cancer; abstinence is as bad as an abortion. Both increase (to the same amount) the risk of breast cancer, as you are not having a baby (which you state decreases the risk of breast cancer). So the very thing you are suggesting people to do (abstinence), is something that increases breast cancer (your argument, as they wont have a baby) which is the reason you are telling people not to have an abortion. Surely, surely a contradiction here. Unless we can find a solution to the contradiction, this section on breast cancer needs to be removed.

: No, your logic is fallacious. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer more than not having children. Also, abstinence reduces the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (outside of marriage) reduces the risk of health problems, including breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.obgyn.net/displayarticle.asp?page=/english/pubs/articles/nuns] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/bcancer1.html] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.popline.org/docs/0078/690575.html] is a study itself that reads "Nuns displayed a striking excess in breast cancer mortality over the age span of 40-74 years and had consistently higher rates than controls for each age group above 39 years." Do you have any links to a study that shows a decreased risk for breast cancer for nuns (who I assume practice abstinence). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:57, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Nuns predictably would have an elevated risk of breast cancer. One who has an [[abortion]] is incurring that risk '''plus''' an increased risk arising from the interruption of a pregnancy. Note that pro-[[abortion]] advocates deny any increased risk of breast cancer from an [[abortion]], which makes no sense in light of what you just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: Multiple the number of abortions worldwide by the charges for those abortions. It's way over a billion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:::"Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream!" -- Well, isn't it? The words have nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a term about popularity. Support for abortion is mainstream, as google defines it: ''The prevailing current of thought influence or activity supported by dominant cultures and institutions.'' [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 13:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, it's not mainstream, except by those who benefit from the [[abortion industry]] or are fooled by it. President [[George W. Bush]] was elected and re-elected by opposing [[abortion]], as does [[John McCain]].

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

The Hippocratic Oath forbids any kind of surgery in general, I feel that its use to decry abortion as a medically unacceptable procedure is outdated and inappropriate here.
[[User:Yatesan|Yatesan]] 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)

==Image==

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008

:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Picture? ==

I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008

: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Abortion and Suicide ==

Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Your see also list has [[Abortion Facts]] on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 14:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Fetus wrong ==

The human fetus is inaccurate. abortions are ALMOST NEVER done anywhere near this point. Always stops the "beating heart" is also inaccurate because the heart has not developed. Use of this image is an example of bleeding-heart pandering.

: Please try again in a more coherent manner. Are you referring to the picture? Many, many [[abortions]] are done at that stage, and later. And doing an [[abortion]] earlier is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pictures Generated ==

Is the first picture computer generated? It looks so realistic that its unrealistic.

: No, it's implausible to think a computer generated that photo. Many similar, actual photos are widely available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Ultimate Goal is Reducing Abortion, yes? ==

I think that this page should have a very stong message of how to reduce the number of abortions. I think that everyone, including the most rabid pro-lifers would have to agree that in an ideal society abortion would not exist. A quick investigation into which countries have extremely low abortion rates would be a starting point for what works. For example, Sweden, often quoted as the ideal liberal society with freely available sexual education and contraception for youth has an unacceptably high abortion rate. About the same as the U.S. But Holland and Belgium, both very secular societies with similar attitudes towards sexual education and contraception have abortion rates about half of the U.S. It appears that outlawing abortion has a dramatic effect on the number of abortions performed but there are also countries like Austria with liberal abortion laws that have extremely low abortion rates.

'''This wall chart shows worldwide abortion statistics and would be useful for anyone researching abortion, as I hope that many people use this site for.'''

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf

It is interesting to see how Canada's abortion rate is 25% less than the U.S. rate. They are relatively similar societies, with Canada being viewed as being more liberal, with more liberal abortion laws.

As well, to present both sides of the story, it should be noted that some researchers contend that outlawing abortion just pushes it underground. In a surprisingly balanced article for the liberal press, here is an article that presents both sides of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Aside from working to outlaw abortion, I think that truly Christian, Conservative activists should research what programs are effective in reducing abortion rates. Abstinence seems not to work, and if contraception is the answer, I think that the small sin of premarital sex with protection far outweighs the big sin of murdering a child.

What do the site adminsitrators and readers think? Is this part of a balanced discussion of abortion.

Jeremyh

: I found the UN table to be liberal claptrap, spreading more misinformation than anything else. The table does confirm that Poland and Ireland, where abortion is illegal, have almost no abortions. Well, no kidding. As to other countries, the table does not differentiate between the various types of abortion regulations that have a big effect on numbers of abortion, such as informed consent, parental consent, bans on abortions after a certain number of weeks, etc. Are Austria's abortion laws really as liberal as the table claims? I doubt they are nearly as liberal as the United States. Also, note that demographics are vastly different between countries like the United States and Canada, and abortion rates vary widely based on demographics with all else the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the UN is probably not the best source for non-liberal information. I have found a better site that breaks down the laws somewhat better, but still is missing the consent aspect. (It appears to be a pro-life site)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

As well it would be foolish and naive to assume that there are no abortions performed in Poland or Ireland. The figures that any goverment agency will give you are offical statistics. Any investigation into the exact number of illegal abortions performed in these countries are bound to be tainted with researcher prejudice. I don't know these figures, and I doubt that anyone really knows with any accuracy. Some liberal researchers put the figures questionably high in order to support their cause of keeping abortion legal. The fact is that abortion laws do not affect these illegal abortions.

I don't want to harp on Austria, but it just seemed so weird that I did a little research. Apparently they have extremely liberal abortion laws and even have legalized the 'abortion pill'. What the heck is going on there? Should we ignore countries like Austria and Belgium? Or should we see if they are doing something right to stop the indiscriminate murder of babies?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2970/2001/00000001/00000001/art00002

I do not claim to know the answer, but it seems that a wider approach is needed to stop abortion in conjunction to working towards banning it. It may sound facetious, but we have had a 100% strictly enforced ban on murder (of adults)in this country for over 200 years and it has not stopped people from murdering each other. Of course we should ban abortion, but what else is in our arsenal to stop this evil? And what the heck are we doing wrong in the U.S. that our abortion rates higher than most Western European nations, and are only outstripped by former Communist countries where the culture was to use abortion as birth control?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

== Morality of Abortion ==

It seems so far that the morality of abortion hinges on the question of whether or not it involves termination of human life. Let me then pose this question: In medical research laboratories, colonies of human cells of various types are often grown in petri dishes in order to study medications and diseases at a cellular level. These cells metabolize (they are in fact alive) and are, genetically speaking, definitely human. If abortion is morally wrong because it involves the termination of human life, is the fixing and staining of human cell cultures morally wrong?
[[User:Cwb|Cwb]]

: Cells are not necessarily human lives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: The question then becomes what is human life, and what is not? You state that cells are not always human life. But a human embryo is little more than a bundle of cells. What exactly makes an embryo a human life and human cell cultures not human life? [[User:Cwb|Cwb]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::: A random bunch of cells can't become a human, but a embryo can. That's the difference. [[User:Patriot1505]]

:::: Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, '''from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle'''.”

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 664: ”'''A new individual''' is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

''The Gale Encyclopedia of Science'' 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, '''the developing human being''' is called an embryo.”

''The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science'' 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple '''life cycle''' consisting of '''fertilization''' of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. '''The developing individual''' between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), '''a new life has begun'''.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), '''a new life begins'''.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 121: ”'''The new individual is established at the time of fertilization''', and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, '''is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment'''.”

Human embryologist say:

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)

William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”'''Human development''' is a '''continuous process''' that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is '''fertilized''' by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)

Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book ''Developmental Biology'':

”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. '''But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm.''' It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)

Besides, as we all consist of different tissues, every human being is just a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual.

--[[User:JohanSB|JohanSB]] 09:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

== The Bible and Abortion ==

I am surprised to see that there is no mention of the Bible's explicit condemnation of abortion in this article. I will write up a section on this if a sysop is willing to unlock it later. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe the relationship between the Bible and abortion is a complicated topic worthy of discussion; I have heard Christian pro-choice advocates quote Exodus 21:22-25, wherein God apparently deems men who kill an unborn child to be not guilty of murder. I, too, would be willing to contribute if a sysop unlocks the article, and will do my best to treat this subject with fairness. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: Just start a new entry, like the [[Abortion and the Bible]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 01:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)

== One-sided graphic display ==

The image at the top of the article is not representative of most aborted fetuses; it almost looks like a baby for crying out loud. An image like Fetus1.jpg would be more appropriate.

== What about women. ==

This Article says nothing about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own own body.
[[User:Hwuya|Hwuya]] 18:11, 24 November 2008 (EDT)
: one could argue that she makes a choice when she elects to become pregnant. I concede that special situation for rape may apply. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Abortion is murder ==

I was stunned to see that the word "murder" does not appear anywhere in the article. Is Conservapedia trying to placate liberals, or pander to liberal viewpoints? This is a simple matter of clear and logical thinking: murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Unborn children are innocent people: therefore, abortion is murder.

I am new here, and I humbly apologize if I am out of my depth, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe we should shy away from boldly stating the truth, even if the liberal media does. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but pro-life leader [[Henry Hyde]] didn't use the word "murder" either. That term entails a legal or moral judgment and this entry has more of a scientific nature, like the rest of this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. It's your decision, of course. I just believe it is the duty of Christians to judge immorality, where the Bible or even common sense dictates. We don't pretend that [[gay rights]] or [[liberal values]] are morally sound on those pages, and evading the issue here leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

:: I am happy to trust your judgment on this issue, though. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::I applaud both your sentiment and your decision. After all, it is discipline as well as truthfulness that distinguishes us from WP. [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 09:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

I would like to point out that abortion is not something done purely for profit, nor do those who run clinics do it for the purposes of earning a lot of money. I think this part of the article os erroneous.

: Wow, you've really been taken in by the abortion propaganda. Check how much the leading advocates of abortion make in one year. You'd be lucky to make the same amount in ten years of hard work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== The fetus in the picture... ==

Does anyone have any idea how old s/he is? I think it would benefit to say "A human fetus at ___ weeks old." [[User:Shatoyaah|Shatoyaah]] 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::It is approximately 3-4 months old.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

== How about high quality video? ==

How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:Sure. Next time I get a chance. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:39, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Planned parenthood's racism ==

Should we include the incident where palnned parenthood called wanting less black people in the world "understandable"? And wasn't their founder also a racist?
:That information is in the [[Planned Parenthood]] article, actually. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

== Picture of the Smellie Forcep ==

Maybe it should be mentioned that it's not solely an "abortion tool" - it is used in regular childbirth as well. Rebranding it as an "abortion tool" is like naming a gun an "armed robbery tool". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 16:18, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

:The caption does not say or imply that it is solely an abortion tool. Also, while guns are overwhelmingly defensive in purpose, by a ratio of more than 100:1, I don't think the same can be said about the Smellie Forcep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

== unlock? ==

Can someone unlock or edit in for me under See Also this - [[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]? Thank you[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 20:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:Done as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-05-15T07:26:32Z

Thevoiceofreason:

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==GOOD ARTICLE==
THIS ARTICLE IS EXCELLENTLY WRITTEN WITH AS LITTLE BIAS AS POSSIBLE IN DEALING WITH THIS EVIL MAN. HE IS NOT EVEN AN ISLAM, BECAUSE ISLAMS BELIEVE IN GOD. HE IS SATANIST SCUM. -THEVOICEOFREASON (ALSO, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?)

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2010-05-15T07:22:26Z

Thevoiceofreason: /* This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

*WE DO NOT NEED THE SUPPORT OF LIBERALS. THEY KILL BABIES AND ARE SWINE. CONSERVATIVES ARE THE KIND ONES.

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>