Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fake science

2012-01-28T22:15:58Z

XDulks: /* The Nature of Junk Science */

== Need a better example ==

I think we need a better example. Given that even Phillip Morris now admits second hand smoke is dangerous, this is not a good example of incorrect science. I propose adding an example about [[http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM Eggs and Cholesterol]]. When studies had found that Cholesterol clogs arteries in humans and there was Cholesterol in eggs, the government began recommending people not eat eggs. However, what was missing from this science was a causal link. That is, it was not shown that the intake of Cholesterol in diet causes an increase of Cholesterol in blood. We now know that most Cholesterol in blood is made by the body in overweight individuals and individuals with high saturated fat intakes. So eggs are now fine to eat -- as long as they are not combined with high calorie, high fat side dishes.

I will wait a couple days before making the change to see if anyone has any input or better examples. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 13:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I went ahead and made this change. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:57, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Now do the same for the "[[ozone hole]]" and [[skin cancer]]; is there a [[ultraviolet]] link, or what? (After that, maybe you can tell us whether air temperature drives [[carbon dioxide]] or is it the other way around?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Merger With Pseudoscience==
*'''Keep Junk Science'''. We need this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
**The discussion isn't about whether or not the article should be deleted, it's whether or not the article should be merged into the article on [[pseudoscience]]. I think that everybody would agree that we need an article on one or the other, but the debate is on whether or not we need both (as the topics are very similar if not different words for the same). -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)
*'''Go ahead and merge'''. This article doesn't really say anything that that is specific to "junk science" versus pseudoscience. At best create a new section on the pseudoscience page for "junk science," but really the articles are functionally the same. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::IlikeCake, are there any parts of this article you suggest keeping when merged? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Hmm...possibly retain the mention that junk science can arise from a misinterpretation of actual evidence? After briefly skimming both articles again I think that this is the one piece of info that's unique to the Junk Science article. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 20:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== 2nd hand smoke ==

The claim that liberals say 2nd hand smoke has now been conclusively proven to cause nearly 20% of urban deaths definitely needs ever a supporting source, or removal.
: I have removed that piece of information. "20% of urban deaths" means absolutely nothing. Is that deaths per year? Deaths ever? How do you define "urban deaths"? It also implies that second-hand smoke isn't harmful ''at all,'' which is completely false. See the American Lung Association's fact sheet: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 19:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Right-wing politics

2012-01-28T17:53:11Z

XDulks:

{{merge|political spectrum}}

Terms like '''right wing''' and '''rightist''' before World War II indicated to the [[Fascist]] side of the political spectrum. Then the "left" meant Communists and most other socialists, while the "right" meant Nazis and Fascists. The meaning of the term has gradually shifted over the intervening {{#expr: {{years ago|1935}} round -1}} years.

While "right wing" continues to suggest opposition to [[Communism]], it no longer means support for the totalitarianism of Hitler, who has become a universally condemned figure.

[[Banana republics]] and other [[authoritarian]] regimes supported by the United States are called "right wing" nowadays. This usage is ambiguous. It suggests that these regimes are [[totalitarian]] in the Nazi sense, which is generally incorrect.

Usage of terms like "right wing" and "far right" by liberals about conservatives is usually intended to conjure up images of Nazi genocide. Indeed, some critics openly liken Israel and its leaders to "Nazis", even though Israel is the most democratic country in the entire Middle East.<ref>Arabs have full citizenship rights in Israel, even serving as judges and legislators.</ref>

In modern politics, the term '''right wing''' is used by [[liberals]] in their attempt to make [[conservatives]] look extreme and unreasonable.

Example usage is, "He's a right-winger!" rather than simply, "He's [[conservative]]."

The term is used less frequently by [[liberals]] now because it has lost much of its pejorative effect.

The term '''Rightist''' refers to someone on the 'right' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'right' usually imply taking positions in favor of the traditional system of a society, including its traditional values and its traditional ruling institutions. Compare: [[leftist]]. Following the left-right political spectrum, a "Right-Winger" could be referred to as anyone who favors having marginally more economic than social rights.

It is widely accepted, however, that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

[[category:political Terms]]

Talk:Right-wing politics

2012-01-28T17:52:08Z

XDulks: /* Actual Definition of "Right Wing" */

Somebody said that "rightists" favor individual liberties, but I don't think liberties are a right/left issue. For example, "the right to bear arms" is usually upheld by people on the right of the US political spectrum, while the "right to sleep with whoever you want" is generally upheld by people on the left.

So I'm going to revert to a previous definition of mine. Also, "fundamentalist" is definitely a synonym (in some contexts) for "conservative" and "rightist", because all three refer to closely following traditional values. So I will put that back in. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 16:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Most right-wingers also favor a right to sleep with whomever you want. Fundamentalist usually refers to religious views, not political views, and is not rightist. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: As for "sleeping with", see below. But you are right that "fundamentalist" is usually a religious term, and to avoid confusing things we should stick to politics on this page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==What defines the political spectrum?==

Rschlafly-- I've been trying really hard to clarify the left/right distinction here. It really seems to me that if we claim "favoring individual liberties" is a rightist (or leftist!) position, we are just confusing things. Favoring liberties is NOT a position that lies anywhere on the left/right scale. Here are the points I would propose to help keep things clear.

: (1) We should emphasize again and again that '''not all issues lie on a one-dimensional political spectrum'''. (And in particular "favoring liberties" is one of those things that just isn't part of the political spectrum.)

: (2) When we talk about the political spectrum, we should try to define what it is. As far as I can tell, '''"right" usually means defending tradition; "left" usually means challenging tradition'''. Obviously that's a really general definition, but that's the point: if you don't make a general definition you can't clearly argue which things are left and which things are right (and which things are off that particular spectrum). This seems to be a good definition, because some of the main "rightist" causes in history have been: defending a country's traditional values and religion; defending the current system of government; joining the military to defend the country; protecting property by arguing against redistributive taxes. Some of the main "leftist" causes in history have been: defending people who want to do things that go against traditional values and religion; defending minority groups that do poorly under the current system of government; joining a revolution to challenge the current system; advocating taxes or other mechanisms to redistribute from those who are privileged under the current system to those who are not. I hope those descriptions don't sound insulting either from a "rightist" or "leftist" perspective, because I'm not trying to insult anybody or advocate one side. I'm just trying ot '''clarify where the big difference lies'''.

: (3) By the way, when I said 'freedom to sleep with whoever you want' I was using euphemisms appropriate to a family-friendly wiki. I will be more explicit so that I can be more clear. Very recently there were anti-sodomy laws on the books in a lot of US states; rightists/conservatives were mostly appalled when those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court. That was a ruling in favor of 'individual liberty' that pleased a lot of leftists (and liberals, in the classical liberal / libertarian sense of the word). You can like that ruling / you can hate that ruling... but we can all agree that it was an example of a form of freedom supported more by the left than by the right, cant we? Or for another example, [[The Economist]] has often advocated legalizing drugs. Most people on the "right" think that's a terrible idea; as far as I can tell most people on the "left" think it's a terrible idea too. So that's another example of a form of freedom that lies nowhere on the "political spectrum" (again, it's "liberal", but only in the classical liberal / libertarian sense).

: (4) So I also think we should use the word "liberal" less often, because it's an extremely confusing word. The original meaning was favoring freedoms; political theorists still use the word that way. But it's often used in the US to mean "left", and it's often used in Europe and much of the rest of the world to mean "right". Of course, if we only want Americans to understand what we say here, then it doesn't matter. But since this site is published on the web where a lot of people in other countries are going to read it, '''we should use the word "leftist" when we mean people who challenge traditional institutions and values'''. If we (rarely) use the word "liberal", we should be clear about whether we really mean "leftist", or whether we really mean "classical liberal / libertarian".

: (5) The word "conservative" is less of a problem, because if we use the word "rightist" to mean "defending traditional institutions and values", then that seems pretty close to what people mean by "conservative". I hope most people who love Conservapedia would agree with that definition... and I hope most people who hate Conservapedia would agree with that definition.

So if you are going to change the definitions I've put on the "leftist" page and the "rightist" page, please take into consideration the points I just made. If you disagree with my definition of what's the defining characteristic of the political spectrum, please provide a better definition and explain why. And in particular, if you think "freedom" lies on one side of the political spectrum, try to explain what you think the political spectrum is, and why this implies that "freedom" is on one side of that spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This comment is better than the explanation that was in the [[Political spectrum]] article. I appreciate Redblue's efforts to educate the reader; he doesn't appear to be trying to score any partisan points. We should listen to him.

::My only 'quibble' is that terms like [[rightist]] and [[leftist]] might better be understood in the context of a single article like [[Political spectrum]], so I propose we merge and redirect there. (But bring this discussion thread along!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''advocating taxes or other mechanisms to redistribute from those who are privileged under the current system to those who are not''

:::this is purely a subjective interpretation and is unacceptable. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Any interpretation that can be read to say "Leftists oppose oppression and Rightists are pro-oppression" will be rejected out of hand. So please, don't waste everybody's time with that nonsense.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Merge with "political spectrum" page?==

Not such a bad idea, but there are lots of links to "leftist" and "rightist" on other pages of Conservapedia,
and it seems sending these directly to "political spectrum" would be more confusing than helpful.

Maintaining multiple pages will also give more room for related information, such as historical information on political groups on the left or on the right. Also, my edits of the "leftist" and "rightist" pages give some comments on terminology (liberal is not the same as leftist; but conservative is a rough synonym for rightist) which fit better on those pages than on the political spectrum page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I removed the historical comment about the French Assembly from the left/right pages and put it on the political spectrum page only. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Joseph Stalin

2012-01-28T16:47:59Z

XDulks:

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|260px]]
| name =Joseph Stalin
| birth =December 18, 1878 Gori, Tiflis Governorate ([[Republic of Georgia|Georgia]]), Russian Empire
| parents =Vissarion Dzhugashvili Catherine Dzhugashvili
| religion =Georgian Orthodoxy (rejected) [[Atheism]]
| education =Tiflis Theological Seminary, Georgia
| spouse =Ekaterina Svanidze (d. 1906-1907) Nadezhda Alliluyeva (d. 1919-1932)
| children =Yakov Dzhugashvili Vasily Dzhugashvili Svetlana Alliluyeva
| death =March 5, 1953 Kuntsevo Dacha, Moscow
| deathmanner =Complications of a stroke
| burial =Near the Kremlin Wall, Moscow, Russia
| country =[[Soviet Union]]
| military =Soviet Armed Forces (1943–1953)
| rank =Marshal of the Soviet Union (1943–1945) (de jure) Generalissimus of the Soviet Union (1945–1953) (de facto)
| polbeliefs =Communism
| party =Communist Party of the Soviet Union
| dictatordate =By 1929
| war =[[Great Purge of the Soviet Union]] [[World War II]]
| deathnumber =33,000,000+
}}
'''Joseph (or Josef) Stalin''' (born '''Ioseb Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili '''; (Russian: Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Джугашви́ли) (1878 - 1953) was the dictator of the Soviet Union and General Secretary of the [[Communist Party]] of the [[Soviet Union]] ([[CPSU]]) from 1922 until his death. Joseph Stalin, who was a brutal proponent of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]], was greatly influenced by the work of the [[evolution|neo-Lamarckian]] [[Trofim Lysenko]] as were other communist leaders.<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref><ref>http://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors</ref><ref>http://creation.com/a-tale-of-four-countries</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwin-trotsky-connection</ref> During 1942 - 1943 Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in order to boost morale while Russia was at war with Nazi Germany.<ref>http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2008/08/stalin-reinstates-church-1942-43.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref>

The son of a poor Georgian cobbler, Stalin was a former seminary student who joined the Communist Party when Georgia was still under the rule of the Russian Tsar. He became one of [[Lenin|Lenin's]] closest allies when the Kerensky regime was overthrown by Lenin's faction in 1917. During the [[Russian Civil War]] Stalin, who chose his name from the Russian word for steel, held the city of Tsaritsen on the Volga from counter-revolutionary forces. Stalin later re-named Tsaritsen [[Stalingrad]] in honor of his victory; Stalingrad would be the site of [[Germany]]'s massive defeat in [[World War II]].

==Rise to Power==

Stain was tapped by the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, as a low-level informer shortly after he was expelled from the Tiflis seminary in 1899. Stalin then began to systematically inform on revolutionary comrades in party organizations in Tiflis, Baku, and Batum over the next few years. He acquired a highly unsavory reputation among the [[Social Democrats]] of these cities and was finally arrested for cover purposes in 1902 when suspicions about him were about to boil over. It was the Okhrana that furnished the invisible means of support for the family he acquired after 1904.

In 1917, the Commissariat of Nationalities was formed with Stalin as its Commissar (Minister). The Commissariat addressed the question of the nationalities of the Russian Empire, and helped integrate them into the [[Soviet Union]]. From 1919-1922 he was also the People's Commissar of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection (Rabkrin, from the Russian), which was founded to be a check on the burgeoning Soviet bureaucracy.

In 1922, Lenin named Stalin General Secretary of the CPSU. In 1924 Stalin in turn created the "Secret Department," a unit of 94 of his personal functionaries that maintained special privileges as the ''[[nomenklatura]]'', or a list of trusted individuals. He also appointed regional party secretaries who all, of course, supported Stalin. Through the Secret Department Stalin gained control of the [[Red Army]] after removing [[Leon Trotsky|Lev Trotsky]] in 1925 and the OGPU (later, [[KGB]]) when its leader [[Felix Dzerzhinsky]] died in 1926. Lenin had foreseen all of this and had warned in his last testament that Stalin should be removed from General Secretary because the position's power was unlimited.
[[Image:Stalin-Lenin.jpg|right|thumb|[[Lenin]] left, Stalin right]]
Stalin, however, did not allow this to happen. His most powerful rival, Lev Trotsky, who was the commander of the Red Army, was painted as a danger to the Revolution, because he continued to push the idea of international revolution; the "left opposition." Other Soviet leaders, like [[Zinoviev]], leader of the [[Comintern]], and [[Kaminev]], the head of the Communist Party in Moscow, were painted with the same brush because they supported Trotsky and did not wish to expel him from the CPSU in 1927. Later, he accused his ally [[Bukharin]] of being a member of the "right opposition," i.e. he was in favor of a more capitalistic economic system, as seen under the [[New Economic Policy]] (NEP) of the early 1920s. Trotsky was murdered in Mexico in 1940 by [[Ramón Mercader]] in an extensive conspiracy that included underground operatives from the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA). Zinoviev, Kaminev, and Bukharin were the center of the famous "[[Great Purge|show trials]]" of the 1930s. All were put to death.

==Objectives of the Comintern==

In 1932, [[Sergei Ivanovich Gussev]], who had served as [[Comintern]] agent and Stalin's personal representative in the United States, "commanded the [[Communist Party of the United States|Communists in the United States]] to take up four tasks. Two of them were the defence of the Soviet Union and the furtherance of Red conquest of [[China]]." In 1933 the notorious [[Gerhart Eisler]] "was secretly sent into the United States by Moscow to make sure these orders were carried out." <ref>[[Louis F. Budenz]], ''The Techniques of Communism'', (Chicago: Henry Regnery and Company, 1954), pp. 162-163.</ref> [[Edgar Snow]] wrote in his 1937 book, ''Red Star Over China,'' "The political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the [[Chinese Communists]] have been under the close guidance, if not positive direction, of the Communist International, which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the [[Russian Communist Party]]. In the final analysis this means that for better or worse, the policies of the Chinese Communists, like the Communists in every other country, have had to fall in line with, and usually subordinate themselves to, the broad strategic requirements of [[Soviet Russia]], under the dictatorship of Stalin."<ref>''Red Star Over China'' by Edgar Snow, New York, 1937, pg. 374.</ref>

==Catch and Overtake==
In 1928 Stalin decided that the Soviet Union was not properly industrialized to enjoy a communist future, so he initiated the First Five Year Plan and the campaign to collectivize agriculture in order to "build socialism," and to "catch and overtake" the capitalist world. Stalin fanned the fires of collectivization, claiming that peasants had been hording grain and that they needed to be controlled. Under this program, rich peasants (kulaks), were exiled or killed for being enemies of the people, and peasants' land was taken in order to introduce collective farming to expedite grain appropriations. Many were called kulaks by jealous neighbors, while the peasants who remained were often the laziest and most ill suited to producing enough grain. Collectivization caused massive famine in Russia, particularly in [[Ukraine]] (see [[Holodomor]]), where Stalin ordered the Red Army to blockade certain regions and take grain by force. It is estimated that the famine of 1931-33 killed 6-7 million people, while 20 million starved.

The First Five Year Plan was a program of crash-industrialization. After [[World War I]] and the Russian Civil War Russia had an industrial capacity equal to that of its 1861 capacity. The only way for Russia to be able to break the "capitalist encirclement," Stalin declared, was to industrialize. Brigades of shock workers were formed to work faster and harder than the world had ever seen. Most of this, however, was pure propaganda, although the shock workers did set the record for concrete poured in a single shift. Compared to the capitalist world which was experiencing the Great Depression, Soviet growth was impressive. Between 1929 and 1937, 8,000 factories were constructed, average GDP growth was around 10%, and the official unemployment statistics, which included gulag detainees, was 0. In 1936, after the Second Five Year Plan, Stalin declared socialism "built." Nevertheless, the capitalist world lived better than the Soviet Union, despite the Great Depression. [[John Scott]], an American CPUSA member and Comintern operative who was living in the Soviet Union during the Five Year Plans, notes this in his memoirs of that period "Behind the Urals." The legacy of the Five Year Plans (most of which Stalin declared "completed" in 4 years) injured the Soviet's production models, because the encouraged quantity and speed over quality. However, the planning of the 1930s enabled the Russians to defeat the Nazis in the 1940s. <ref>Suvorov, Viktor. ''Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?// (Viking Press/Hamish Hamilton; 1990) ISBN 0241126223.</ref>

==Stalin's Terror==
Between 1936 and 1938, Joseph Stalin launched his purges to rid the Soviet Union of "fifth columnists," or spies who were loyal to the [[capitalist]] world. During the Terror 3 million people were arrested on various and often made-up charges, while 750,000 were executed. Due to the interrogation techniques of the NKVD (later, KGB), which often were torturous, most of those arrested confessed and were sent to work camps, called the [[Gulag]] for 10 years and sometimes even 25. Here, prisoners were forced to labor in mines, to log forests, or to do construction. Few lived through their sentences.

In early 1937, a senior officer of the OGPU (KGB) stumbled upon a highly classified file in the old archives of the Tsarist secret police, the Okhrana. It detailed the work of one J. V. Djugashvili as an informant and agent provocateur for the Okhrana inside the Bolshevik Party before the Russian Revolution. The OGPU officer, Stein, was shocked. Djugashvili was the true name of Stalin who was now purging the Old Bolsheviks on charges of being foreign spies and counter-revolutionaries.

Stein took the file to a close friend, the head of the OGPU in the Ukraine, who went over it carefully with his trusted deputy, Zinovy Katsnelson, a cousin and close friend of Alexander Orlov. Convinced of its authenticity, they shared it with Jonah Yakir, commander of the Red Army in the Ukraine, and Stanislav Kossior, secretary of the Communist Party in the Ukraine. Alarmed by the file’s revelations, Yakir flew to Moscow and revealed its contents to [[Mikhail Tukhachevsky]], Supreme Commander of the Red Army. They brought his deputy, Yan Gamarnik, into their confidence and decided to overthrow Stalin in a coup d’etat, denounce him and execute him.

As the coup plan was being developed, Katsnelson traveled to Paris and informed Orlov. The plot was foiled and Orlov’s fate was sealed.

The infamous show trials of former leaders of the Soviet Union occurred during this period, where they were accused of working with Trotsky or sabotaging the Soviet Union. Stalin also eviscerated the high command of the Red Army, killing 90% of the leadership. The minions of oppression were not spared either; of the NKVD's 809 officials, 43 lived through the purges. The leadership of the communist party was persecuted as well. For example, in 1934 130 members of the 139-member Central Committee were arrested. The Terror forever made Russians afraid to speak out against the government, and also made sure that no one but Stalin could ever rule the Soviet Union as effectively.

==Famine of 1933==
{{main|Holodomor}}
* "This famine was deliberately engineered by the regime of [[Josef Stalin]] {{years since|1933}} years ago claimed millions of lives, mostly in [[Ukraine]] but also in some other parts of the [[Soviet Union]]. It is today considered one of the worst [[atrocities]] of the Soviet regime and a terrifying act of [[genocide]]. Even so, the famine of 1933 is relatively unknown. ... Estimates of how many people died in Stalin's engineered [[famine]] of 1933 vary. But they are staggering in their scale -- between seven and 11 million people."<ref>[http://www.ukemonde.com/news/rferl.html Stalin's Starvation of Ukraine – Seventy Years Later, World Still Largely Unaware Of Tragedy], By Askold Krushelnycky, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Prague, 8 April 2003.</ref>

==World War II==
To avoid war with [[Germany]], Stalin ordered the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, [[Molotov]], to sign a non-aggression pact with [[Adolf Hitler]], named the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]], on August 19, 1939. The treaty detailed the agreement to split up [[Poland]] between Germany and the Soviet Union, give Stalin the Baltic Republics of [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]], and [[Estonia]], and to allow the Soviets to wage war on [[Finland]], a war that ended in a humiliating Soviet defeat. Both sides, however, knew that they would eventually engage in hostilities.

It seems that Stalin anticipated this less than Hitler, who, in June of 1941 invaded the Soviet Union with the largest land army ever assembled. It consisted of 170 divisions, or 3.5 million troops. Stalin was caught off guard, and the [[Nazis]] blazed a path through the Ukraine and European Russia. Reaching [[Moscow]] in October 1941, the Nazis threatened Stalin and the entire Soviet Union with defeat. In only 6 months, the Nazis controlled one third of the Soviet economy, a total of 5% of the Earth's surface. Hitler's troops were defeated at Moscow during the winter of 1941-42 after Stalin appointed [[Yorky Zhukov]] as commander of the Red Army. A spy in the German embassy in Tokyo, [[Richard Sorge]], informed Stalin that Japan was not going to attack [[Siberia]], freeing thousands of winter ski-troops to move to Moscow to defeat the Nazis. It was during this time that Stalin famously invoked the name of [[God]] and allowed religious services to be conducted after 20 plus years of repression. Also, 1500 factories were evacuated and restored in Siberia and 12-15 million workers were moved east of the [[Urals]], where Soviet production was higher than Germany's in 1942, despite Germany holding some 50% of Soviet industry.

The Red Army went on the offensive after the defense of Moscow, but soon the Nazis gained the advantage and pushed to Stalingrad. More than one million troops fought on each side in urban combat. Hitler refused to allow surrender, and eventually the Nazis were encircled and routed. After turning the tide of war in Stalingrad, the 1943 [[Kursk]] tank battle was decisive in pushing the Nazis from European Russia. In two years, the Red Army pushed the Nazis all the way back to [[Berlin]]. Stalin used his control of Eastern Europe to extract concessions from [[President Roosevelt]] at Allied conferences, including control over the region. [[Winston Churchill]] warned against this very control, for he greatly feared Soviet hegemony in Europe. Victorious, Stalin named himself Generalissimo and became more popular than ever in the Soviet Union and more dangerous than ever to the capitalist world.

Over the course of World War II, around 25 million Russians died. Twenty million were in the armed services. The total number of 25 million reflects half of the worldwide losses of human life during World War II. The population did not recover until 1956. Many Soviet POWs, like famous writer [[Alexander Solzhenitsyn]], were sent to the Gulag after the war because they had fallen into German hands, and were accused of being spies. This swelled the prison camps by the thousands.

==Post-War Period and Death==
Similar to the 1930s, Stalin undertook a harsh campaign of industrialization, which hurt the Soviets as much as it helped them rebuild. Money was devalued to one-tenth of its previous value, 2 million German and Japanese POWs were forced to stay in the Soviet Union and rebuild the country, and 10% of investment from 1945-46 was from looted machinery. The crops produced by household plots were collected by the government to sell, and a famine in 1947 caused by drought and Soviet single-crop farming killed 2 million. The recovery was built on the Soviet subjects.
[[Image:Stalinfuneral.jpg|250px|right|thumb|''Right to left:'' Lavrenti Beria, Georgi Malenkov, Vassily Stalin, V.M. Molotov, Nikolai Bulganin]]
After World War II, Stalin's [[cult of personality]] emerged as the dominant force of Soviet life. He was credited as the savior of the Soviet Union and the architect of victory, though it was really General Zhukov who was responsible for most of this. The communist youth group, the [[Komsomol]], devoted songs to "the Father of All Nations" or "the Driver of the Locomotive of History." Party membership increased by one million people between 1945 and 1953. Books quoted Stalin as an expert in communism, while he was often photographed surrounded by children to make him seem friendlier. This all served to form a deep, personal connection with Stalin for many Soviets. Indeed, he was loved by the Soviets. When he died in 1953 an anxious mob at his viewing crushed and trampled some mourners to death. Dissidents like Sakharov, the man forced in a prison to build the Soviet atom bomb, cried upon hearing that Stalin had died, despite their intense hatred of him. Despite his terror, he had convinced millions that he was their father.

Following a stroke on March 1, 1953, Stalin died on March 5 after a period of declining performance. Between 1949 and 1952 Stalin increasingly took vacations and met with the [[Politburo]] less and less. When he died a short power struggle ensued, one which led to the execution of KGB head [[Beria]] as a spy. Eventually [[Khrushchev]] became the General Secretary of the CPSU and denounced Stalin's repressive tactics, his purges, gulags, and his cult of personality in the [[Secret Speech]] at the 20th Party Congress of 1956. Gulags were dismantled and the political climate was slightly less tense, but Soviet oppression still continued. The period following Stalin's rule is called the "thaw," the start of life again after a long winter.

==Quotes==
"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." ~ to Churchill, 1945.

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem"

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything"

"The only real power comes out of a long rifle."

"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use."
==See also==
*[[Stalinism]]

==References==
<references/>
Though this isn't footnoted, it is culled from the following sources:

Hosking, Geoffrey. The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Kotkin, Stephen. Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as Civilization. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1995.

Scott, John. ''Behind the Urals: An American Worker in Russia’s City of Steel''. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989.

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr Isaevich, ''The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956''; an experiment in literary investigation'', Translated from the Russian by Thomas P. Whitney, Publisher New York, Harper & Row (1974-78), 1st Edition, pg. 67n.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Stalin, Joseph}}
[[category:communists]]
[[Category:Mass Murderers]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Marxism]]

Leon Trotsky

2012-01-28T16:47:08Z

XDulks: /* Career */

[[Image:Trockiy2.jpg|right|thumb|Leon Trotsky]]

'''Leon Trotsky''' ([[Russian language|Russian]]: Лeв Давидович Трóцкий) , born '''Lev Davidovich Bronstein''' (Russian: Лeв Давидович Бронштéйн) (1879-1940), pronounced (traht'-skee) was a leader with [[Lenin]] in the Bolshevik (Communist) [[October Revolution]] in Russia in 1917. A charismatic orator, systematic organizer and brilliant theorist, Trotsky was primarily an intellectual whose writings greatly influenced leftist movements worldwide. An energetic organizer he planned the successful Petrograd uprising in November 1917, created the Red Army, and played the central role in winning the civil war (1918-20). Trotsky's independence and aloofness made him a poor backstage negotiator and he was easily outmaneuvered by Stalin, who controlled the party apparatus, After Lenin's disability in 1923, Trotsky lost power to [[Stalin]]. Forced into exile, he denounced the Soviet regime as an impure form of Communism; Stalin had him assassinated in Mexico in 1940.

Trotsky made many blunders and exaggerations, including losing his nerve when Germany invaded Russia in 1918; taking the credit due the generals for the Red victory in the civil war; claiming to be the father of the New Economic Policy of the 1920s; claiming to be on good terms with Lenin in the 1920s; displaying profound naivety in dealing with Stalin in 1924; and his [[wishful thinking]] that Stalinism was on the verge of collapse in the 1930s.

"Death came early to him, explains his leading biographer, "because he fought for a cause that was more destructive than he ever imagined."<ref>Service (2009)</ref>
==Career==
Trotsky, was the son of a prosperous and reportedly non-religious Jewish farmer in the Ukraine. Well educated and rebellious, he became a professional revolutionary as a teenager. He was arrested in 1898 and was later exiled to Siberia, where he joined the Social Democratic party. In 1902 he escaped abroad, met Lenin.

In 1903, while Lenin headed the Bolsheviks, Trotsky joined the rival Mensheviks. Mensheviks did not believe trying to ignite a revolution, expecting that it would happen when the people were ready. By contrast the Bolsheviks who believed that the people needed to be led. From 1904 until 1917 Trotsky had a stormy relationship with Lenin, accusing Lenin of wanting to become a dictator. But the two of them resolved their differences in 1917, and after that point Trotsky was totally loyal to Lenin.

Trotsky was the most powerful orator in the Bolshevik party, and due to his numerous spells in jail and his active role in the failed 1905 revolution he was much more famous than Lenin was to ordinary Russians. He was the actual organizer behind the [[October Revolution]], as Lenin was still in exile and so unable to participate.

==Civil War==
Trotsky also helped build the [[Red Army]] that defeated the White Russian Army in the subsequent Civil War in Russia, despite having no military experience of any kind.

==Power struggle==
Lenin was always primarily a politician; politics absorbed his waking hours. The conflict between Trotsky and Lenin led to the subsequent struggle between Trotsky and [[Stalin]] in Lenin's last months. Multiple rivalries within the Bolshevik Party emerged because history did not unfold as predicted by theory; the Communist revolution did not spread into a worldwide spontaneous uprising of the working people. Lenin accused Stalin of Russian chauvinism when he proposed the incorporation of different nationalities into a unitary Soviet state. But Lenin was disabled by a stroke in 1923 before he could remove Stalin, and Stalin proved the master politician.

When Lenin died in 1924, a lengthy power struggle began between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky took the view that socialism in the Soviet Union must await a revolution in western Europe and even worldwide. Stalin wanted power immediately and offered a rival ideology, ''Socialism in one country''. To fend off accusations of becoming the new 'Napoleon', he gave up his command of the Red Army.

The struggle for power in the Soviet Union during Lenin's last illness in 1923 was not based merely on a clash of personalities but involved fundamental issues concerning the future political and economic development of the Soviet Union. Trotsky's desire to lessen Party control over the administration while centralizing the economy and giving priority to heavy industry, as well as his doubts about reforms of government proposed by Lenin, made him isolated on the Politburo. Trotsky did not carry out Lenin's wishes toward Stalin and the "Georgians" because he agreed with Stalin's ideas on the nationality question and centralization, but he was outmaneuvered by Stalin's strengthening of the powers of the Secretariat, which contradicted Trotsky's ideas on freeing administration from direct political control.

Trotsky was a quick-witted combatant and ruthless foe; he was an articulate intellectual, but he lacked humanism or normal human qualities such as empthy, respect for the sacred, loyalty to his friends, or indeed, loyalty to anything except his theory of how should happen, but never did. His theory suffered from lack of nuance, and from Trotsky's inability to adjust it to account for the uncertainties and human dimensions of actual history.

==Exile==
Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Bolshevik party in 1927 and exiled him from Russia in 1929. Trotsky's constant goal was to gain control of world Communist leadership and implement more radical programs. To this end, he advocated youth rebellion, [[women's liberation|feminism]], [[Black Power]], guerrilla warfare, free abortions, "free love" and the homosexual agenda (Stalin banned sodomy in 1934). Trotsky formed a loose organization of German followers in 1930 but failed either to defeat or take control of the German Communist Party. Indeed, his supporters nearly everywhere were outmaneuvered and defeated by the Soviet Communists, and lingered in numerous countries as a far-left party with little influence, with the exception of Sri Lanka where the Trotskyite "Lanka Sama Samaja Party" dominated the Marxist left for decades, and Vietnam where the Trotskyites were very popular in the Saigon area in the 30's and 40's until they were massacred by the Stalinites under [[Ho Chi Minh]]. Intellectuals who joined Trotsky's movement were put off by Trotsky's dogmatism and his intolerance of the least deviation from his ideas.

After getting kicked out of Turkey and France, Trotsky settled in Mexico in 1937, where he was welcomed by the atheistic, anti-American government of [[Lazaro Cardenas]]. While in Mexico, Trotsky continued to write angry essays about the Soviet Government, alleging that it had betrayed the revolution. The Soviets responded by organizing several assassination attempts. The first attempt, in 24 May 1940, was a home invasion by 30 Communists armed with guns and bombs, but they somehow failed to kill Trotsky and his wife. Then on August 20, 1940 Spanish communist Ramón Mercader, acting on orders from Stalin, successfully murdered Trotsky in his Mexico City home, using an ice axe while his back was turned.

==Permanent revolution==
Trotsky's most influential idea was the notion of permanent revolution. Drawing on the experiences of the 1905 Russian Revolution, Trotsky maintained that revolution would spread worldwide after the international proletariat's aid to the Russian workers, who in turn would "export" the revolution abroad. By contrast Stalin rejected Trotsky’s theory and presented his own thesis on socialism in one country (Russia) in 1926. Trotsky asserted that the unification of developed and backward countries in the worldwide operations of capitalism created a combination of separate and uneven stages of development in backward countries like Russia, permitting the Russian proletariat the capability of carrying out a revolution but at the same time requiring the permanent extension of revolution in time and space until the extinction of class distinctions.
==American influence==
American Trotskyites were political activists in the 1930s who follows the teachings of Trotsky and opposed Stalin's version. All of them broke with Trotsky, and many became conservatives, such as [[Max Eastman]], [[James Burnham]] and [[Seymour Martin Lipset]].

[[Paleoconservatives]], who dislike [[Neoconservatism]] intensely, have argued that it emerged from Trotskyite theories, especially the notion of permanent revolution. There are four fundamental flaws in the paleoconservatives' attack: most of the neoconservatives were never Trotskyites; none of them ever subscribed to the right-wing Socialism of Max Shachtman; the assertion that neoconservatives subscribe to "inverted Trotskyism" is misleading; and neoconservatives advocate democratic globalism, not permanent revolution.<ref>William F. King, "Neoconservatives and 'Trotskyism'" ''American Communist History'' 2004 3(2): 247-266 online at [[EBSCO]]</ref>

==Historiography==
Western commentators on Trotsky generally fall into four categories, aside from orthodox Trotskyists, who have generally been concerned with preserving his ideas rather than developing them. First, the pro-Soviets oppose him and his ideas, especially on the issue of socialism in one country. The second group, described as sympathetic critics, has examined Trotsky's stands and while generally in agreement, has commonly found his views mistaken on three points in particular: his conversion to Leninism, his failure to move against Stalin in 1923, and his characterization of Stalinism as a workers' state. A third group of commentators has viewed Trotsky skeptically, an unlikely alternative to Stalin. The realist group, in contrast, faults Trotsky for failure to realize the true nature of events after 1917. After glasnost in the 1980s Trotsky was rehabilitated in Russia as an important leader and some of his writings have been published.<ref> Michael Cox, "Trotsky and his Interpreters; Or, Will the Real Leon Trotsky Please Stand Up?" ''Russian Review'' 1992 51(1): 84-102. </ref>

==Religion==
One of Trotsky's famous quotes (which also sums up the [[Atheism]] in the Communist Movement) was : "Religions are illogical primitive ignorance. There is nothing as ridiculous and tragic as a religious government."

==Further reading==
* Alexander, Robert J. ''International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement'' (1991), 1128pp [http://www.questia.com/read/27804413?title=International%20Trotskyism%2c%201929-1985%3a%20A%20Documented%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Movement online edition]
* Brotherstone, Terry , et al eds. ''The Trotsky Reappraisal'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/59387717?title=The%20Trotsky%20Reappraisal online edition], 19 short essays by scholars
* Daniels, Robert V. ''Trotsky, Stalin and Socialism.'' (1991). 208 pp.
* Deutscher, isaac. ''Trotsky'' (3v, 1954-63), by a far-left admirer of Trotsky
* Garza, Hedda. ''Leon Trotsky'' (1986) short survey
* Kolakowski, Leszek. ''Main Current of Marxism'' (1978), 3:183-219, on Trotsky in 1930s
* Molyneux, John. ''Leon Trotsky's Theory of Revolution.'' (1981). 238 pp.
* Pomper, Philip. ''Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin: The Intelligentsia and Power.'' (1990). 446 pp.
* Renton, Dave. ''Trotsky'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Trotsky-Life-Times-Dave-Renton/dp/1904341624/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245111487&sr=1-34 excerpt and text search]
* Service, Robert. ''Trotsky: A Biography'' (2009), 600pp; by a leading historian; the best biography
* Thatcher, Ian D. ''Trotsky'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Trotsky-Routledge-Historical-Biographies-Thatcher/dp/0415232503/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245111296&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/read/108142763?title=Trotsky full text online]
* Volkogonov, Dmitri. ''Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary.'' (1996). 560 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Trotsky-Eternal-Revolutionary-Dmitri-Volkogonov/dp/1416576649/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245111189&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search], very hostile
===Primary sources===
* Trotsky, Leon. ''The Basic Writings of Trotsky'' ed. by Irving Howe, (1963), [http://www.questia.com/read/58369460?title=The%20Basic%20Writings%20of%20Trotsky online edition]
* Trotsky, Leon. ''The Age of Permanent Revolution: A Trotsky Anthology'' ed. by Isaac Deutscher (1970)
* [http://www.questia.com/library/leon-trotsky.jsp online books and chapters on Trotsky and by him]

== See also ==
*[[Trotskyism]]
*[[Great purge]]
*[[Diego Rivera]]
*[[Elizabeth Zarubina]]
*[[Floyd Miller]]
*[[Gregory Rabinovich]]
*[[Sylvia Callen]]
*[[Jack Soble]]

====references====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trotsky, Leon}}
[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Marxism]]
[[Category:Trotskyite]]

Leon Trotsky

2012-01-28T16:46:12Z

XDulks:

[[Image:Trockiy2.jpg|right|thumb|Leon Trotsky]]

'''Leon Trotsky''' ([[Russian language|Russian]]: Лeв Давидович Трóцкий) , born '''Lev Davidovich Bronstein''' (Russian: Лeв Давидович Бронштéйн) (1879-1940), pronounced (traht'-skee) was a leader with [[Lenin]] in the Bolshevik (Communist) [[October Revolution]] in Russia in 1917. A charismatic orator, systematic organizer and brilliant theorist, Trotsky was primarily an intellectual whose writings greatly influenced leftist movements worldwide. An energetic organizer he planned the successful Petrograd uprising in November 1917, created the Red Army, and played the central role in winning the civil war (1918-20). Trotsky's independence and aloofness made him a poor backstage negotiator and he was easily outmaneuvered by Stalin, who controlled the party apparatus, After Lenin's disability in 1923, Trotsky lost power to [[Stalin]]. Forced into exile, he denounced the Soviet regime as an impure form of Communism; Stalin had him assassinated in Mexico in 1940.

Trotsky made many blunders and exaggerations, including losing his nerve when Germany invaded Russia in 1918; taking the credit due the generals for the Red victory in the civil war; claiming to be the father of the New Economic Policy of the 1920s; claiming to be on good terms with Lenin in the 1920s; displaying profound naivety in dealing with Stalin in 1924; and his [[wishful thinking]] that Stalinism was on the verge of collapse in the 1930s.

"Death came early to him, explains his leading biographer, "because he fought for a cause that was more destructive than he ever imagined."<ref>Service (2009)</ref>
==Career==
Trotsky, was the son of a prosperous Jewish farmer in the Ukraine. Well educated and rebellious, he became a professional revolutionary as a teenager. He was arrested in 1898 and was later exiled to Siberia, where he joined the Social Democratic party. In 1902 he escaped abroad, met Lenin.

In 1903, while Lenin headed the Bolsheviks, Trotsky joined the rival Mensheviks. Mensheviks did not believe trying to ignite a revolution, expecting that it would happen when the people were ready. By contrast the Bolsheviks who believed that the people needed to be led. From 1904 until 1917 Trotsky had a stormy relationship with Lenin, accusing Lenin of wanting to become a dictator. But the two of them resolved their differences in 1917, and after that point Trotsky was totally loyal to Lenin.

Trotsky was the most powerful orator in the Bolshevik party, and due to his numerous spells in jail and his active role in the failed 1905 revolution he was much more famous than Lenin was to ordinary Russians. He was the actual organizer behind the [[October Revolution]], as Lenin was still in exile and so unable to participate.
==Civil War==
Trotsky also helped build the [[Red Army]] that defeated the White Russian Army in the subsequent Civil War in Russia, despite having no military experience of any kind.

==Power struggle==
Lenin was always primarily a politician; politics absorbed his waking hours. The conflict between Trotsky and Lenin led to the subsequent struggle between Trotsky and [[Stalin]] in Lenin's last months. Multiple rivalries within the Bolshevik Party emerged because history did not unfold as predicted by theory; the Communist revolution did not spread into a worldwide spontaneous uprising of the working people. Lenin accused Stalin of Russian chauvinism when he proposed the incorporation of different nationalities into a unitary Soviet state. But Lenin was disabled by a stroke in 1923 before he could remove Stalin, and Stalin proved the master politician.

When Lenin died in 1924, a lengthy power struggle began between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky took the view that socialism in the Soviet Union must await a revolution in western Europe and even worldwide. Stalin wanted power immediately and offered a rival ideology, ''Socialism in one country''. To fend off accusations of becoming the new 'Napoleon', he gave up his command of the Red Army.

The struggle for power in the Soviet Union during Lenin's last illness in 1923 was not based merely on a clash of personalities but involved fundamental issues concerning the future political and economic development of the Soviet Union. Trotsky's desire to lessen Party control over the administration while centralizing the economy and giving priority to heavy industry, as well as his doubts about reforms of government proposed by Lenin, made him isolated on the Politburo. Trotsky did not carry out Lenin's wishes toward Stalin and the "Georgians" because he agreed with Stalin's ideas on the nationality question and centralization, but he was outmaneuvered by Stalin's strengthening of the powers of the Secretariat, which contradicted Trotsky's ideas on freeing administration from direct political control.

Trotsky was a quick-witted combatant and ruthless foe; he was an articulate intellectual, but he lacked humanism or normal human qualities such as empthy, respect for the sacred, loyalty to his friends, or indeed, loyalty to anything except his theory of how should happen, but never did. His theory suffered from lack of nuance, and from Trotsky's inability to adjust it to account for the uncertainties and human dimensions of actual history.

==Exile==
Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Bolshevik party in 1927 and exiled him from Russia in 1929. Trotsky's constant goal was to gain control of world Communist leadership and implement more radical programs. To this end, he advocated youth rebellion, [[women's liberation|feminism]], [[Black Power]], guerrilla warfare, free abortions, "free love" and the homosexual agenda (Stalin banned sodomy in 1934). Trotsky formed a loose organization of German followers in 1930 but failed either to defeat or take control of the German Communist Party. Indeed, his supporters nearly everywhere were outmaneuvered and defeated by the Soviet Communists, and lingered in numerous countries as a far-left party with little influence, with the exception of Sri Lanka where the Trotskyite "Lanka Sama Samaja Party" dominated the Marxist left for decades, and Vietnam where the Trotskyites were very popular in the Saigon area in the 30's and 40's until they were massacred by the Stalinites under [[Ho Chi Minh]]. Intellectuals who joined Trotsky's movement were put off by Trotsky's dogmatism and his intolerance of the least deviation from his ideas.

After getting kicked out of Turkey and France, Trotsky settled in Mexico in 1937, where he was welcomed by the atheistic, anti-American government of [[Lazaro Cardenas]]. While in Mexico, Trotsky continued to write angry essays about the Soviet Government, alleging that it had betrayed the revolution. The Soviets responded by organizing several assassination attempts. The first attempt, in 24 May 1940, was a home invasion by 30 Communists armed with guns and bombs, but they somehow failed to kill Trotsky and his wife. Then on August 20, 1940 Spanish communist Ramón Mercader, acting on orders from Stalin, successfully murdered Trotsky in his Mexico City home, using an ice axe while his back was turned.

==Permanent revolution==
Trotsky's most influential idea was the notion of permanent revolution. Drawing on the experiences of the 1905 Russian Revolution, Trotsky maintained that revolution would spread worldwide after the international proletariat's aid to the Russian workers, who in turn would "export" the revolution abroad. By contrast Stalin rejected Trotsky’s theory and presented his own thesis on socialism in one country (Russia) in 1926. Trotsky asserted that the unification of developed and backward countries in the worldwide operations of capitalism created a combination of separate and uneven stages of development in backward countries like Russia, permitting the Russian proletariat the capability of carrying out a revolution but at the same time requiring the permanent extension of revolution in time and space until the extinction of class distinctions.
==American influence==
American Trotskyites were political activists in the 1930s who follows the teachings of Trotsky and opposed Stalin's version. All of them broke with Trotsky, and many became conservatives, such as [[Max Eastman]], [[James Burnham]] and [[Seymour Martin Lipset]].

[[Paleoconservatives]], who dislike [[Neoconservatism]] intensely, have argued that it emerged from Trotskyite theories, especially the notion of permanent revolution. There are four fundamental flaws in the paleoconservatives' attack: most of the neoconservatives were never Trotskyites; none of them ever subscribed to the right-wing Socialism of Max Shachtman; the assertion that neoconservatives subscribe to "inverted Trotskyism" is misleading; and neoconservatives advocate democratic globalism, not permanent revolution.<ref>William F. King, "Neoconservatives and 'Trotskyism'" ''American Communist History'' 2004 3(2): 247-266 online at [[EBSCO]]</ref>

==Historiography==
Western commentators on Trotsky generally fall into four categories, aside from orthodox Trotskyists, who have generally been concerned with preserving his ideas rather than developing them. First, the pro-Soviets oppose him and his ideas, especially on the issue of socialism in one country. The second group, described as sympathetic critics, has examined Trotsky's stands and while generally in agreement, has commonly found his views mistaken on three points in particular: his conversion to Leninism, his failure to move against Stalin in 1923, and his characterization of Stalinism as a workers' state. A third group of commentators has viewed Trotsky skeptically, an unlikely alternative to Stalin. The realist group, in contrast, faults Trotsky for failure to realize the true nature of events after 1917. After glasnost in the 1980s Trotsky was rehabilitated in Russia as an important leader and some of his writings have been published.<ref> Michael Cox, "Trotsky and his Interpreters; Or, Will the Real Leon Trotsky Please Stand Up?" ''Russian Review'' 1992 51(1): 84-102. </ref>

==Religion==
One of Trotsky's famous quotes (which also sums up the [[Atheism]] in the Communist Movement) was : "Religions are illogical primitive ignorance. There is nothing as ridiculous and tragic as a religious government."

==Further reading==
* Alexander, Robert J. ''International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement'' (1991), 1128pp [http://www.questia.com/read/27804413?title=International%20Trotskyism%2c%201929-1985%3a%20A%20Documented%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Movement online edition]
* Brotherstone, Terry , et al eds. ''The Trotsky Reappraisal'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/59387717?title=The%20Trotsky%20Reappraisal online edition], 19 short essays by scholars
* Daniels, Robert V. ''Trotsky, Stalin and Socialism.'' (1991). 208 pp.
* Deutscher, isaac. ''Trotsky'' (3v, 1954-63), by a far-left admirer of Trotsky
* Garza, Hedda. ''Leon Trotsky'' (1986) short survey
* Kolakowski, Leszek. ''Main Current of Marxism'' (1978), 3:183-219, on Trotsky in 1930s
* Molyneux, John. ''Leon Trotsky's Theory of Revolution.'' (1981). 238 pp.
* Pomper, Philip. ''Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin: The Intelligentsia and Power.'' (1990). 446 pp.
* Renton, Dave. ''Trotsky'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Trotsky-Life-Times-Dave-Renton/dp/1904341624/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245111487&sr=1-34 excerpt and text search]
* Service, Robert. ''Trotsky: A Biography'' (2009), 600pp; by a leading historian; the best biography
* Thatcher, Ian D. ''Trotsky'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Trotsky-Routledge-Historical-Biographies-Thatcher/dp/0415232503/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245111296&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/read/108142763?title=Trotsky full text online]
* Volkogonov, Dmitri. ''Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary.'' (1996). 560 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Trotsky-Eternal-Revolutionary-Dmitri-Volkogonov/dp/1416576649/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245111189&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search], very hostile
===Primary sources===
* Trotsky, Leon. ''The Basic Writings of Trotsky'' ed. by Irving Howe, (1963), [http://www.questia.com/read/58369460?title=The%20Basic%20Writings%20of%20Trotsky online edition]
* Trotsky, Leon. ''The Age of Permanent Revolution: A Trotsky Anthology'' ed. by Isaac Deutscher (1970)
* [http://www.questia.com/library/leon-trotsky.jsp online books and chapters on Trotsky and by him]

== See also ==
*[[Trotskyism]]
*[[Great purge]]
*[[Diego Rivera]]
*[[Elizabeth Zarubina]]
*[[Floyd Miller]]
*[[Gregory Rabinovich]]
*[[Sylvia Callen]]
*[[Jack Soble]]

====references====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trotsky, Leon}}
[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Marxism]]
[[Category:Trotskyite]]

Gun control

2012-01-28T16:41:06Z

XDulks:

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, even though guns are typically acquired for defensive and/or sporting purposes. Studies show that more gun ownership results in less crime, but [[liberals]] push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward. Accordingly, the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there; fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns somehow leads to less crime, even though guns are primarily defensive weapons.<ref>People who support gun control claim or pretend that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. A study by Professor Gary Kleck, a liberal critic of gun control changed his mind on gun control when the studies showed that crime was ''prevented'' when people could carry guns in the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. <ref>http://www.largo.org/effects.html</ref> In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>

Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>

There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The reason for this was the fact that the supplying of guns for the military and militas was already provided for in Article I Section 8 as a power of Congress. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as many handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where most replicas are outlawed.

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have firearms.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]
*[[Second Amendment]]
*[[Gun Control in Nazi Germany]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}

Talk:Right-wing politics

2012-01-28T16:30:17Z

XDulks: /* Merge with "political spectrum" page? */

Talk:Harry Potter

2012-01-28T14:34:05Z

XDulks: /* Looking for God in Harry Potter */

==The Onion==
I question this material:
:These claims were conflated and exacerbated by a piece in the satirical newspaper [[The Onion]] purporting to interview children who had become involved in satanism and witchcraft after reading the Harry Potter books and could now cast spells.[http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm] [http://web.archive.org/web/20000815214418/http://www.theonion.com/onion3625/harry_potter.html] Rowling has denied such claims.[http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1201-bbc-hpandme.htm] The mainstream media has not taken this claim seriously.
The Onion is a stitch and a lot of people love it, but I doubt that it was an important influence in the Harry Potter phenomenon. The (very good) article cited to support the sentence "Rowling has denied such claims" says nothing about The Onion or about claims that readers of the books learned to cast spells. I haven't bothered to check the history to see who added this, but I suspect a leg-pull. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:45, 3 March 2007 (EST)

: The Snopes reference particularly mentions the Harry Potter article and asserts that it was circulated as evidence. See the reference in the section you removed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:36, 4 March 2007 (EST)

"The books have even been accused of promoting witchcraft."

Wow, that's pretty deep! --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:45, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::Maybe I was wrong. I ''hate'' it when that happens.

::I checked the Rowling reference but not the others, my bad.

::I'm not quite ready to put it back, though, until I'm convinced it really was influential. The ''Onion'' piece appeared in 2000. And Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Harry_Potter#Religious_opposition_to_witchcraft_themes Controversy over Harry Potter] article says that "Since 1999, the Harry Potter books have sat atop the American Library Association’s list of most protested books, with some American churches banning the books altogether." So ''The Onion'' was clearly satirizing a controversy that was already in full swing. How much influence did the "Dear Christian" email really have in amplifying it?

::I won't put it back personally, but I won't revert if anyone else does. I'd still like to see some context to show that it was of much significance. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Witch craft ==

I added some contribution to this article discussing how it deals with the topic of witches and wizards and communication between magical and non-magical people. Why was it deleted. I know what I wrote about since I have read all the 6 books several times and am eagerly waiting for the 7th :-)

This was what I wrote http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=27741..

I thought it would fit in with the rest of the site ;-). Anyways can anyone tell me why those blue borders appeared and how to remove them.

== Looking for God in Harry Potter ==

I have a book, ''Looking for God in Harry Potter'' by John Granger, ISBN: 1414306342, which looks for the hidden meaning in the Harry Potter series. There are many other things in the book that would be helpful in the CP article. I would like to colloborate with someone that could integrate the book with the CP article, without plagiarizing the book. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:21, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Harry Potter is, first and foremost, about the triumph of good over evil. As to criticisms of the book's take on authority, I was previously unaware that a writer's incoroporation of complexity into adult characters was so frowned upon, and were Nebuchadnezzar and King Darius not authority figures also? --X. Dulks

==Accusations?==

Cut from criticisms section:

:The books have also been accused of promoting witchcraft or [[wicca]].<ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/potter.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1735623.stm]</ref> <ref>[http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/0127.asp]</ref> <ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_06.htm]</ref>

The first ref I followed mentions the [[occult]] nature of the magic in the books, but I fail to see how "Carol" is accusing the books of '''promoting witchcraft'''. My understanding (as a Christian educator myself) is that the books are fantasy in the same genre as the [[Narnia]] books of [[C.S. Lewis]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

:If you take a look at the recent criticisms added to the Chronicles of Narnia entry, I think you'll see that Narnia is far from innocent and harmless itself. The whole POINT of Harry Potter is to tell a story where witches are heroes. It's hard to imagine how such a twisted perversion can do anything BUT promote witchcraft and the occult. Thousands of pages are spent glorifying people who practice magic, something forbidden by the Word of God.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 22:30, 30 December 2008 (EST)

How can a book promote something that does not exist? Saying that the ''Harry Potter'' novels promote witchcraft is like saying that the ''Star Wars'' movies promote intergalactic space-travel. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 17:21, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

::In Harry Potter, there is a clearly defined good, a clearly defined evil, and good will ultimately triumph over evil. Those who claim Harry Potter has an underlying satanistic message clearly haven't read the book and aren't interested in the truth. --[[User:AaronAdamicz|AaronAdamicz]] 15:25, 25 December 2009 (EST)

:::The emphasis on magic is suspicious for many Christians, and other religious people who are aware of the prohibitions against sorcery in the Bible. The idea that spiritual forces are at our command is a dangerous one, what with all those young people who are seduced by the [[Occult]].

:::The notion that "Satanism is nothing to worry about" isn't a conservative idea, nor a particularly Christian one. It can play into what more than one Christian writer has noted, that one of Satan's greatest achievements has been to deny his own existence. Given his essential craftiness, we should not mistake this strategy for a godly victory.

:::It would be odd if the world's top bestselling book for children had no flaws whatsoever. Pray don't present the story as immune to criticism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:36, 29 December 2009 (EST)

=Heading off a possible edit war=

I have noticed recent activity on the Harry Potter page. Whilst I understand that such matters can stir strong opinion, I am also aware that this is a site that builds trustworthy articles through consensus amongst trustworthy contributors. If the current theme of editing continues, then may I suggest that we revert back to the last edit peer-reviewed and cleared by an administrator that was made before all the recent edits, such as the revert made by TK on 13:05, 24 June 2009, or by TerryH on 22:10, 22 June 2009.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 18:45, 29 September 2009 (EDT)
::OK I protected it. Note that "conservative Christians" is not a theological category. All of the quoted critics have been Fundamentalists and they seem to be relying on the Old Testament warnings to Jews to avoid pagan witchcraft. The warnings are not repeated in the New Testament.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:33, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks Mr Jenson, I had a horrible feeling that that kind of edit warring would turn into a large troll-magnet, if it already hadn't.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 13:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== "Veritaserum" ==

I edited the "literary criticism" section which incorrectly criticized the books. Veritaserum is like our polygraph, and thus unreliable as explained in the books and by the author, JK Rowling.

Talk:Mohandas K. Gandhi

2012-01-28T14:20:07Z

XDulks: /* Spelling */

== Jesus Christ/Christianity Quote ==

Is is really necessary to have this quote in its entirity or for it to be quite as prominent as it is? Considering all the other things (Communism, extramarital sex, murder/abortion, etc.) which Gandhi certainly spoke out against in his life why single out Christianity and Christians in particular as something he disapproved of? I think it's in danger of giving an anti-Christian gloss to the article which could mislead and which could be quoted against Christianity in the future. I would suggest either removing the second half of the quote to balance it more fairly, or if that's not possible perhaps remove it entirely until a better balance can be struck with this article as a whole. --[[User:GSmiley|GSmiley]] 19:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the quotation belongs. It's very famous, probably because (I'm pretty sure) it was a ''line'' in Ben Kingsley's movie ''Gandhi.''

:It's not anti-Christian, it's a comment on what he saw as the hypocrisy of many who label themselves as Christian. And it's a fair indication of how he regarded the British.

:The big problem with the quotation is that although it appears in numerous places on the Web, none of them gives a very good source. The best I've been able to find so far says he said it in an interview with E. Stanley Jones, a Methodist missionary who became friends with Gandhi early on. Jones wrote a 1948 book entitled ''Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation'' but it's not clear whether the quotation is from that book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article could mention his dates, and how, when, and why he died.

==Spelling==

As the article is entitled with the Gandi spelling, it is sufficient to inform that it is often mispselt as Ghandi. Spelling it out w

Because Gandhi's name comes from a language that does not use the Roman Alphabet (alphabet of English, Spanish, French and most other European languages), there technically is no single correct Roman Alphabet spelling of "Gandhi." --X. Dulks

==White Actor==
Do you mean Kingsley? He's Indian.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:imdb.com says half Indian, half English. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001426/bio] So my "brilliant" concatenation of ideas drops into the shadow of foolish speculation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)

==Racism against Indians==

I have heard the words "colored" (obvious), "black" (bit of a stretch) and even "nigger" applied to men from India. When are we all going to realize that in God's eyes there are no races? All people are His beloved children. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:08, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Mohandas K. Gandhi

2012-01-28T14:19:13Z

XDulks: /* Spelling */

== Jesus Christ/Christianity Quote ==

Is is really necessary to have this quote in its entirity or for it to be quite as prominent as it is? Considering all the other things (Communism, extramarital sex, murder/abortion, etc.) which Gandhi certainly spoke out against in his life why single out Christianity and Christians in particular as something he disapproved of? I think it's in danger of giving an anti-Christian gloss to the article which could mislead and which could be quoted against Christianity in the future. I would suggest either removing the second half of the quote to balance it more fairly, or if that's not possible perhaps remove it entirely until a better balance can be struck with this article as a whole. --[[User:GSmiley|GSmiley]] 19:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the quotation belongs. It's very famous, probably because (I'm pretty sure) it was a ''line'' in Ben Kingsley's movie ''Gandhi.''

:It's not anti-Christian, it's a comment on what he saw as the hypocrisy of many who label themselves as Christian. And it's a fair indication of how he regarded the British.

:The big problem with the quotation is that although it appears in numerous places on the Web, none of them gives a very good source. The best I've been able to find so far says he said it in an interview with E. Stanley Jones, a Methodist missionary who became friends with Gandhi early on. Jones wrote a 1948 book entitled ''Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation'' but it's not clear whether the quotation is from that book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article could mention his dates, and how, when, and why he died.

==Spelling==

As the article is entitled with the Gandi spelling, it is sufficient to inform that it is often mispselt as Ghandi. Spelling it out w

Because Gandhi's name comes from a language that does not use the Roman Alphabet (alphabet of English, Spanish, French and most other European languages), there technically is no correct Roman Alphabet spelling of "Gandhi." --X. Dulks

==White Actor==
Do you mean Kingsley? He's Indian.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 18:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:imdb.com says half Indian, half English. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001426/bio] So my "brilliant" concatenation of ideas drops into the shadow of foolish speculation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)

==Racism against Indians==

I have heard the words "colored" (obvious), "black" (bit of a stretch) and even "nigger" applied to men from India. When are we all going to realize that in God's eyes there are no races? All people are His beloved children. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:08, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Deliberate ignorance

2012-01-28T13:39:07Z

XDulks: /* Application To Delete the Entire Article */

I just wanted to say how happy I am that it is OK to post insults about active, helpful editors. It's the reason I edit here; they don't allow that kind of thing at Wikipedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: HelpJazz, feigning "insult" is an example of [[liberal style]]. Relax. Also, there is no evidence that you are a "libertarian" and we've rejected self-labels here long ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

(unacceptable language deleted)

I've noticed that there are no citations for these examples of deliberate ignorance, also would it be possible for a sysop to create a category for cryptology realted articles [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 12:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The "I've never heard that in the New York Times" is extremely biased, as the NYT is only read by 20 percent of the population (according to conservapedia). Why not change it to, "the news?"

==Censorship Complaint==

Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap". The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one. Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight. Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance. I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example. I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...". See [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans here], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx079oEgKKs here] and [http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm here] for example. And there are many more where they came from. Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path? Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:You hit the nail on the head: ''"Evolutionists say..."'' Yes, they "say." They "say" fish evolved into frogs, dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into scientists. They can "say" all they want, but ''saying'' it happened is far different from ''proving'' it happened. I can use that same argument - and with just as much authority - by saying a housefly evolved into a house, a horsefly evolved into a horse, or a stinkbug evolved into a Volkswagen Beetle. And just like the evolutionists, I'd have as my "proof" the flies, the house, the horse, and the bugs; I'd have that brilliant scenario to fit what's in between, and I'd have those papers published that compel the public to "accept" what was just explained here.
:No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution; it's just a tale, as per the first sentence of the first link you provided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:48, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::::: I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that ''in evolutionary terms'' there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::::: 150 years after Darwin suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, I haven't seen a plausible, detailed explanation yet. Are you aware of a detailed explanation that addresses the substantive issues and unique characteristics of a whale?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 4 March 2011 (EST)

::::::: Sorry for the delay in responding. Did you look at the links that I posted above? I don't for a moment suggest that your own ignorance of evolutionary biology is deliberate. But the editor who posted the whale reference should at least have taken a cursory look at the readily available material on the subject. To reiterate: I am not saying that the evolutionary position is true. I am saying that ''from an evolutionary point of view'' there is no lack of a plausible path any more than there is a lack of a plausible evolutionary path for any other creature. Accordingly I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:57, 8 March 2011 (EST)

:::::::: I assume from the lack of response that no-one has any problem with me removing the item now. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:28, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::My understanding (after reading the article and conversation here) is that the evolution of the whale, while there is a solution that has been tabled, has no ''plausible'' explanation and that the scientists refuse to accept that. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::The difficulty that I was trying to point out is that the evolution of the whale, as it is currently explained by evolutionary scientists, is no more or less plausible than the evolution of any other creature. It cannot, therefore, be an example of deliberate ignorance any more than, for example, a belief in evolution generally is an example of deliberate ignorance. I don't know if I can express it in clearer terms than that. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:57, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::The whale, a mammal, has many extraordinary characteristics that are not found in any other creatures. Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since. It is a counterexample to the [[theory of evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::You didn't look at any of those links that I provided at the top of the thread, did you? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:09, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I looked at those links, and again it's evolutionists ''saying'' it happened; they're not ''proving'' it happened. That is a situation that you, CecilQ, are choosing to ignore completely. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:28, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::I looked at those links also. The first one called it an "unfinished story," the second one is a link to Wikipedia, the third is a YouTube video, and so on. Those links are a far cry from openminded, rigorous science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::@Karajou: I say again: I am not saying that evolution ought to be accepted. This thread is about a specific alleged example of deliberate ignorance. I am trying to elicit exactly what it is about this particular example that smacks of deliberate ignorance.
:::::::::::::::@Aschafly: If you had read the links when you posted your comment of 22 March then I cannot understand how you could have written: "Darwin recognized this as a serious problem, and suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming. No more plausible ancestor has been suggested ever since". In all seriousness, are you suggesting that the black bear theory is the most plausible theory yet? Clearly, looking at those links, a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested. And isn't the fact that some evolutionists refer to it as an "unfinished story" indicative of open enquiring minds rather than deliberate ignorance? Working from within the evolutionary paradigm, just what is it about the proposed evolutionary path that is indicative of deliberate ignorance. I think it would be appropriate at this stage if you could provide specific details. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:52, 22 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Darwin said black bears; then it changed to "dog-like" carnivores [http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/ancientwhales.htm]; now the latest scenario (read "excuse") is deer [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm]. Bambi meets Flipper? In this particular evo-story - and all of evolution in general - these "educated" men will come with any excuse, any scenario, any situation...anything under the sun, ''except'' Genesis, Chapter 1. They cannot tolerate the fact that there is a God who created everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Hmm... I think you'll find that the "dog-like" creatures and the "deer-like" creatures both exist in the current proposed evolutionary pathway. Pakicetus is described in your first article as having "dog-like legs" and Indohyus is described in your second article as being "deer-like". According to current evolutionary theory they are both related to whales (edit - although, in the case of Indohyus the relationship appears less certain). It is not as if there has been a movement from bears to dogs to deer (which appears to be what you are suggesting in your post). Rather, it is as I have described it above: "a number of fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time and a far more detailed and, on its face, far more plausible evolutionary path has been suggested".

Now, both you and I know that the Bible is 100% true and correct and that Jesus is our personal Lord and Saviour. We also agree that evolution cannot possibly be right and that the Great Flood definitely definitely happened. However, this is an article on ''deliberate'' ignorance. The mere fact that we do not agree with someone's point of view does not mean that they are being deliberately ignorant. People can legitimately hold opposing views without deliberate ignorance being the necessary cause. For this whale item to be included in this article there really needs to be a more considered criticism than "Bambi meets Flipper". Can you point to any reference that indicates that deliberate ignorance is at work in relation to the suggested evolutionary pathway for whales? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 00:51, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:Cecil, the suggested evolutionary pathways ignore many unique features and characteristics of whales. Darwin lacked a plausible explanation ''because there is none within his theory''. Rather than address this, evolutionists ignore it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

::Specifically what unique features and characteristics? Exactly what are they ignoring? And why do you say they are acting with ''deliberate'' ignorance? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== Application To Delete the Entire Article ==

I think this entire article needs to be removed completely. It has no academic or intellectual value and is clearly put on the site for the purpose of targeting a specific group of people. It has almost no sources and gives no information. It does not belong on an ostensibly objective encyclopedia. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 21:40, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

:It has value and does provide information. Deliberate ignorance is something that could even be studied.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

::All this article does is call people the author doesnt like names. I suspect if I started posting other examples of deliberate ignorance, I'd get in trouble unless they were of people the author disliked. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:40, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy ==

This article is hypocritical. "Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while ignoring the faults of one's own..." What if the "one ideology" that "could ever make mistakes" is liberalism? This seems to be the overall perspective of Conservapedia; is Conservapedia guilty of deliberate ignorance? --X. Dulks

== Un-American content ==

I feel that this should be edited:
<blockquote>

"atheists refuse to acknowledge a priori philosophical proofs of the existence of God, and specifically the Christian god, ..."

</blockquote>

It seems to indicate that there really are other gods than the American God of The Bible. I find this unacceptable even in this 'negative' context, where the existence of God is being denied by the wretched atheists. I suggest removing "and specifically the Christian god".

== Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include... ==

I find the section past the "Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include" to be very lacking. Only one example is cited, so basically it's just a list of things that we think some liberals probably said at some point in time. As such, it is not really based on fact, but only on what we presume to be true. I find this to be dangerous and quite in-step with how some liberals behave in regard to conservatives, i.e. "I'm pretty sure I saw a Tea Partyer say something racist at some point, so I'm sure the Tea Party is racist" type of thinking. As such, I'm deleting the section and rewording the one quote that was sourced. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert, but I hope that if you do, you manage to find some sources to back up at least some of the claims listed. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 21:30, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think it should be deleted without first gaining some sort of consensus/discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:34, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh. Well, I already deleted it, heh heh...if you think there's more to be discussed, go ahead and revert. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 21:40, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I did revert it but check again in a day or so and if no one has commented I suppose you can delete the section again. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:41, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm sure citations could be found easily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Columbine High School Massacre

2012-01-28T13:31:46Z

XDulks: /* Bullying */

This article should be at "Columbine massacre". [[User:Human|Human]] 20:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm fine (obviously) with "Columbine High School massacre". Thank you. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::I thought "Columbine massacre" may be a bit too ambiguous, since Columbines are also flowers. I wouldn't want someone to come and mistake this for "the flower massacre". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer [[Columbine school shooting]]. I tried moving Wikipedia's parallel article there as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbine_school_shootings&diff=123823018&oldid=123801330] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-religious?==

Where in the sources does it say that the shooters where anti-religious or targetting specially christians? cant find any mention about that. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge, but I'll go find a source to add authenticity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah, I do seem to remember they asked one girl if she was a Christian before shooting her. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That was Cassie Bernall. Sorry, I didn't see the Christianity part; that's a myth, they just wanted body count. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You sure? I remember reading in Newsweek about one killer asking a girl if she was a Christian before shooting her in the head. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's in the 2nd citation in the article.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 21:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I find it odd that the article says they're anti-religous when Eric was raised Catholic and Dylan was raised Luteran? Is it just convienent to leave this out? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:39, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I also find it odd that the article states that the boys were anti-social, anti-gun control, and whatnot, but provides no sources to actually support those opinions. Many things have been cleared up or found out in the past ten years. The article looks like it was written the week after the shooting.[[User:Innkeeper|Innkeeper]] 00:07, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Edits Needed ==

Three edits are needed in order to improve this article. First off, the article indicates that "The killers were anti-religion, anti-establishment, antisocial, and anti-sports." While some or all of this statement may or may not be true, the cited article(s) don't indicate that any part of the statement is true, and in the sidebar even shows that neither was as outcast from their peers as much as portrayed in most renditions of the events. It goes to say that "They were not captains of the football team, but they were far more accepted than many of their schoolmates. They hung out with a tight circle of close friends and partied regularly on the weekend with a wider crowd." I think that this should either be removed or a source that properly and verifiably indicates the statement in question is correct.

Also, a large part of their plot was not only that they would gun down students, but also set off a series pipe bombs in and around the school, despite the failure of all the bombs to detonate.It is imperative that this segment is also added to the story, as it is a major part of the events of the columbine massacre. Included with this I believe it would be appropriate in the article to delve into more detail on the backround of the attack such as the past of both boys as well as the planning that was involved in them pulling it off.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 21:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:This article is on the Main Page saying it needs to be improved... yet it is locked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 15:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bullying ==

I do not seek to excuse what the Columbine killers did; their actions were inexcusable. However, this article fails to mention the fact that their reason for murder was the fact that they were constantly bullied by classmates, likely by the ones who they later killed. -- X. Dulks

==A note on "Doom"==
A long-standing urban legend is that the boys had created a simulation of their school to use with the cult classic "Doom" and used this to train for their rampage. It *is* true that the boys were indeed huge fans of the game, and they *did* claim their rampage was going to be "just like Doom", but there is *no* evidence, nowhere, that they had actually created levels based on Columbine.

Levels created by one of the shooters DO exist, but these resemble nothing like a high school, being little more than straightforward all-out deathmatch arenas: hardly training for a high school rampage, let alone a "murder simulator", the current trend word for FPS games. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Harris Levels were more than just deathmatch arenas, they had several new textures among other things. Plus extra gore. But beyond that, just deathmatch. They look nothing like Columbine. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:57, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== I Daresay ==

that the (small) article can barely begin to describe what happened at Columbine.
Having researched the Columbine shootings for the better part of a year, I can say it's sorely lacking.

Here is a link to a thesis I wrote. (unsigned comment by Soulsetfire)
(link removed due to inappropriate image and excessive language by [[User:DanH|DanH]] ))

=Michael Moore is what exactly=

Can we please decide if Moore is a socialist or liberal. The two things are entirely distinct. Contributors may enjoy accusing him of being both, but this is rather like calling him a communist and a fascist. Frankly, though he may approve of a national health service, nothing else he has said suggests he is in favor of widespread collectivization. Let's just call him left-wing and leave it at that.

*Moore has also stated he is in favor of wealth redistribution as well. I would say he is a socialistic liberal. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:02, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

==Americans==
I removed an unsourced statement that the perpetrators sought out "Americans". That would hardly have been difficult in a Colorado High School. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Columbine High School Massacre

2012-01-28T13:31:25Z

XDulks: /* Edits Needed */

This article should be at "Columbine massacre". [[User:Human|Human]] 20:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm fine (obviously) with "Columbine High School massacre". Thank you. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::I thought "Columbine massacre" may be a bit too ambiguous, since Columbines are also flowers. I wouldn't want someone to come and mistake this for "the flower massacre". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer [[Columbine school shooting]]. I tried moving Wikipedia's parallel article there as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbine_school_shootings&diff=123823018&oldid=123801330] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-religious?==

Where in the sources does it say that the shooters where anti-religious or targetting specially christians? cant find any mention about that. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge, but I'll go find a source to add authenticity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah, I do seem to remember they asked one girl if she was a Christian before shooting her. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That was Cassie Bernall. Sorry, I didn't see the Christianity part; that's a myth, they just wanted body count. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You sure? I remember reading in Newsweek about one killer asking a girl if she was a Christian before shooting her in the head. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's in the 2nd citation in the article.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 21:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I find it odd that the article says they're anti-religous when Eric was raised Catholic and Dylan was raised Luteran? Is it just convienent to leave this out? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:39, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I also find it odd that the article states that the boys were anti-social, anti-gun control, and whatnot, but provides no sources to actually support those opinions. Many things have been cleared up or found out in the past ten years. The article looks like it was written the week after the shooting.[[User:Innkeeper|Innkeeper]] 00:07, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Edits Needed ==

Three edits are needed in order to improve this article. First off, the article indicates that "The killers were anti-religion, anti-establishment, antisocial, and anti-sports." While some or all of this statement may or may not be true, the cited article(s) don't indicate that any part of the statement is true, and in the sidebar even shows that neither was as outcast from their peers as much as portrayed in most renditions of the events. It goes to say that "They were not captains of the football team, but they were far more accepted than many of their schoolmates. They hung out with a tight circle of close friends and partied regularly on the weekend with a wider crowd." I think that this should either be removed or a source that properly and verifiably indicates the statement in question is correct.

Also, a large part of their plot was not only that they would gun down students, but also set off a series pipe bombs in and around the school, despite the failure of all the bombs to detonate.It is imperative that this segment is also added to the story, as it is a major part of the events of the columbine massacre. Included with this I believe it would be appropriate in the article to delve into more detail on the backround of the attack such as the past of both boys as well as the planning that was involved in them pulling it off.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 21:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:This article is on the Main Page saying it needs to be improved... yet it is locked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 15:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bullying ==

I do not seek to excuse what the Columbine killers did; their actions were inexcusable. However, this article fails to mention the fact that their reason for murder was the fact that they were constantly bullied by classmates, likely by the ones who they later killed.

==A note on "Doom"==
A long-standing urban legend is that the boys had created a simulation of their school to use with the cult classic "Doom" and used this to train for their rampage. It *is* true that the boys were indeed huge fans of the game, and they *did* claim their rampage was going to be "just like Doom", but there is *no* evidence, nowhere, that they had actually created levels based on Columbine.

Levels created by one of the shooters DO exist, but these resemble nothing like a high school, being little more than straightforward all-out deathmatch arenas: hardly training for a high school rampage, let alone a "murder simulator", the current trend word for FPS games. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Harris Levels were more than just deathmatch arenas, they had several new textures among other things. Plus extra gore. But beyond that, just deathmatch. They look nothing like Columbine. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:57, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== I Daresay ==

that the (small) article can barely begin to describe what happened at Columbine.
Having researched the Columbine shootings for the better part of a year, I can say it's sorely lacking.

Here is a link to a thesis I wrote. (unsigned comment by Soulsetfire)
(link removed due to inappropriate image and excessive language by [[User:DanH|DanH]] ))

=Michael Moore is what exactly=

Can we please decide if Moore is a socialist or liberal. The two things are entirely distinct. Contributors may enjoy accusing him of being both, but this is rather like calling him a communist and a fascist. Frankly, though he may approve of a national health service, nothing else he has said suggests he is in favor of widespread collectivization. Let's just call him left-wing and leave it at that.

*Moore has also stated he is in favor of wealth redistribution as well. I would say he is a socialistic liberal. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:02, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

==Americans==
I removed an unsourced statement that the perpetrators sought out "Americans". That would hardly have been difficult in a Colorado High School. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Fake science

2012-01-28T03:15:48Z

XDulks: /* Need a better example */

== Need a better example ==

I think we need a better example. Given that even Phillip Morris now admits second hand smoke is dangerous, this is not a good example of incorrect science. I propose adding an example about [[http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM Eggs and Cholesterol]]. When studies had found that Cholesterol clogs arteries in humans and there was Cholesterol in eggs, the government began recommending people not eat eggs. However, what was missing from this science was a causal link. That is, it was not shown that the intake of Cholesterol in diet causes an increase of Cholesterol in blood. We now know that most Cholesterol in blood is made by the body in overweight individuals and individuals with high saturated fat intakes. So eggs are now fine to eat -- as long as they are not combined with high calorie, high fat side dishes.

I will wait a couple days before making the change to see if anyone has any input or better examples. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 13:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I went ahead and made this change. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:57, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Now do the same for the "[[ozone hole]]" and [[skin cancer]]; is there a [[ultraviolet]] link, or what? (After that, maybe you can tell us whether air temperature drives [[carbon dioxide]] or is it the other way around?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Nature of Junk Science ==

"This entry is dedicated to the Creator of Conservapedia, the Great and Exalted Andrew Schlafly.
The Great and Exalted Andrew Schlafly deserves to be referred to as such because God has given him the Divine Right, though The Exalted is a lawyer and not a scientist, to judge some branches of the sciences to be Junk Science while praising other branches as honest and legitimate. Though the standards used by him are yet unclear, it is probable that The Exalted Schlafly receives guidance from The Universally Unquestionable and Unfaltering Party of Reagan.
As to the actual meaning of this entry, the reader is left to be the judge."

I found this quote recently and thought that it deserved attention, though I am presently unaware of its original source. --X. Dulks

==Possible Merger With Pseudoscience==
*'''Keep Junk Science'''. We need this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
**The discussion isn't about whether or not the article should be deleted, it's whether or not the article should be merged into the article on [[pseudoscience]]. I think that everybody would agree that we need an article on one or the other, but the debate is on whether or not we need both (as the topics are very similar if not different words for the same). -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)
*'''Go ahead and merge'''. This article doesn't really say anything that that is specific to "junk science" versus pseudoscience. At best create a new section on the pseudoscience page for "junk science," but really the articles are functionally the same. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::IlikeCake, are there any parts of this article you suggest keeping when merged? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Hmm...possibly retain the mention that junk science can arise from a misinterpretation of actual evidence? After briefly skimming both articles again I think that this is the one piece of info that's unique to the Junk Science article. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 20:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== 2nd hand smoke ==

The claim that liberals say 2nd hand smoke has now been conclusively proven to cause nearly 20% of urban deaths definitely needs ever a supporting source, or removal.
: I have removed that piece of information. "20% of urban deaths" means absolutely nothing. Is that deaths per year? Deaths ever? How do you define "urban deaths"? It also implies that second-hand smoke isn't harmful ''at all,'' which is completely false. See the American Lung Association's fact sheet: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 19:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Evolution

2012-01-28T03:07:59Z

XDulks: /* Evolution as a theory or hypothesis */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

Talk:Immigration

2012-01-27T18:00:08Z

XDulks: Created page with "[I acknowledge Conservapedia's right to edit content but ask not to be quoted if the content that I post is censored.] I found this page by clicking on the "immigration" link in ..."

[I acknowledge Conservapedia's right to edit content but ask not to be quoted if the content that I post is censored.]
I found this page by clicking on the "immigration" link in the "Conservatism" article, which supports, among other things, enforcement of current immigration laws. Decades ago, an illegal immigrant could become a legal one by marrying a legal US citizen. Government enforcement of current immigration laws, which provide no such protection, would force immigrants who are married to legal citizens to leave the United States (often to return to one with worse living conditions) and thus encourage the breakup of families (I was previously under the impression that Conservapedia took a pro-family stance.). Also, the enforcement of current immigration laws would require vast amounts of taxpayer money (I was also, previously, under the impression that Conservapedia was against both rash government spending and higher taxes.). --X. Dulks

Talk:Classroom prayer

2012-01-27T01:44:15Z

XDulks: /* A right? */

== Liberal bias? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion Explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==The human rights aspect==

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

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

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

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

== A right? ==

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

The majority of arguments for school sanctioned prayer that are mentioned here is, in my opinion, hypocritical. In a hypothetical situation, if school sanctioned prayer were to be made legal again, and, say, a Wiccan teacher lead a class prayer, it would likely make the news, in which case the members of Conservapedia would probably give the situation a name (such as, "The Wiccan Indoctrination Fiasco") and then proceed to push for either religious discrimination against Wiccans or the re-establishment of the "no school-sanctioned prayer allowed" law. --X. Dulks

Talk:Classroom prayer

2012-01-27T01:43:24Z

XDulks: /* A right? */