Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-20T17:16:45Z

Cidd11: /* Reliable Sources? */

This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)
==This article is surprisingly neutral==
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Dictator!!!!????==
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::...Who was not democratically elected. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'.

It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not surprising. Mr. Homimachong seems to be a fan of Kim Jong il and Hitler and Saddam Husseien, and he can't NOT be a fan of someone like Chavez. If you liked Hitler, you'll like Chavez! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==

you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!

:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::We 'wouldn't' say that Hitler was Germany's "president," considering that he abolished the office after Paul von Hindenburg's death. Nor was he democratically elected. He was 'appointed' to the chancellorship by Hindenburg, and then assumed presidential powers after Hindenburg's death that he was never intended to have. Hence, as Chavez is a democratically elected head of state, you need greater evidence that he is a "dictator." [[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 01:02, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Irony ==

Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.

Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}

== What a disgrace. ==

How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?

And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.

It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]

:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)

==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Pro-Chavez ==

I don't care how Chavez was sworn in, he can certainly become a dictator in office! I, frankly, am appalled at all those on here who love this man. If you love this man you must be a chavestite yourself or went to a ultra-pro-Chavez Venezuelan school. If so, you have a lot of surprises waiting for you! This article isn't even listing the things he said about Bush, like calling him "the devil". If he thinks Bush is the devil, why isn't he following him?? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Dictator ==

I want to agree with the views expressed above. I am by no means a fan of Chavez; he is a manipulative, power-hungry, buffoonish demagogue who may yet drive his country into the ground and is stripping away his citizens' freedom. But he is absolutely ''not'' a dictator. A dictator has total or near-total control of the government; Chavez, whatever he may wish, is still heavily hamstrung by the apparatus of Venezuela's democracy. He has had to refer many of his measures to the voters, and was recently handed a defeat which he could do nothing about. You can call him a dictator-wannabe or repressive, but it ill-serves the credibility of Conservapedia to say he is something he is not. [[User:Tor|Tor]] 16:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)
:Thank You Tor to are completely correct on this one. You know I am beginning to have my doubts about whether this website is being edited in good faith. Chavez is not perfect, and has done a lot of things to harm his country's economy and its people but a dictater? Well that's nonsense and for our encyclopedia to say so because we dislike his economic and social positions, well that's nonsense on stilts.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 08:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Anyone here heard the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra? No? I thought not. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

=="Silencing" the Media==
''"In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence."''
This claim has more problems than the "non-American spelling," which has caused Conservapedia to be critical of Wikipedia in the past. It is outright disingenuous to claim that Chavez "silenced" RCTV because they were "critical of his repression." RCTV's license was simply not renewed; it was not "revoked." And the reason that it was not renewed is because five years prior, RCTV had openly endorsed the overthrow of the democratically elected President Chavez. If a news outlet in the U.S. had openly called for the overthrow of Bush, and Bush was temporarily removed from power, it's likely that the persons responsible would be imprisoned and charged with treason, not have their license not renewed five years after the fact. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 21:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, given that nobody here has expressed any opposition to this, I'm editing the media claim. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 21:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

'''2002 coup'''

I am alarmed at the only passing mention of the 2002 coup perpetrated by the extreme right. I no one minds I am going to add a section in on it.

== Reliable Sources? ==

I notice most of these sources come from the State Department. Some of these seem to be without proof or trustworthy information (mainly right wing media).

Is there any information from other sources pending to allegations of terrorism or human trafficking from sources other than the State Department? If there is I can't find any. So is all that information extremely relevant of reliable?
::Please don't erase information you don't like. Instead, if you know some reliable sources with conservative information, please provide them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:13, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:The word of one man is hardly a reliable source that you have cited. There was no election fraud. I simply erased it as it had no basis in fact. The election was verified by the Venezuelan government (without controversy claimed) and many international observers (including those from Canada.) I was simply removing information that was by any standard unacceptable and uncredited.
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:23, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Once again I am removing the article on Election Fraud. I cannot stress the need for a reliable source on this subject. The opinion of one man does not constitute a reliable source. I also do not feel obligated to provide proof that he won the election as that would be a moot point towards this article. --[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 12:02, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
::C'mon, Chavez is a power freak. He is a master manipulator who has Cidd11 defending a tyrant-wannabe results. Someone check if Wikipedia whitewashes the election. Someone see if Carter gave his stamp of approval.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:12, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Here's a source from a left-wing rag (Washington Post) which hints at election fraud [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4208-2004Aug16.html], as well as the numbers cited in the source you removed. Others [http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/15/144227.shtml][http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748875503551983.html][http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33175]. Cidd11, if you also don't feel obligated to provide proof, as you said, of anything that could help this or any other article, then why should you feel obligated to ''remove'' anything in any article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

If your attempting to prove this "election fraud" with media rants and unsourced news articles you go a long way from promoting facts. As I have said you are not providong any reliable sources to his election fraud other than these rants. I can give you the election results from the Venezuelan government (to which may I say ''again'' no one in Venezuela disputes the results. Perhaps members of the right-wing media but other wise it is a legitimate election) though i doubt you will give them any stock. I can provide you with sources saying he was elected freely. But they are not conservative or liberal. Honestly please try not to inject a useless bias into this discussion just because you wish to brand him a dictator. All I am pointing out is that you are not using any facts to back up this claim other than biased anti-Chavez news articles! I don't care whose liberal and whose not! I simply cannot support a lie!--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 13:16, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Communism

2009-10-20T16:09:01Z

Cidd11: /* Main Image */

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

==totalitarian nightmare==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Picture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Communist could be good ==

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

== Picture ==

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

== very biased ==

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

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

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

== In bad shape ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Communism / China ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Get your facts straight! ==

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

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

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Category ==

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

== This article is a load of crap ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

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

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

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

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

== Employment ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Am I, y'know… ==

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

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

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

== Discuss on talk page? ==

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

== Hang on a sec ==

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

== Mistake ==

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

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

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

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Theory Section ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with the current theory section:

Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable

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

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

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

:*This is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:* Got any sources to support that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== My edits a few minutes ago ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Is Communism Atheistic In Nature? ==

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

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

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

== Generalisation. ==

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

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

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

== Unexplained edit revert ==

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

== Pros and Cons ==

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

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

----

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

== Main Image ==

Somehow the image just doesn't seem to give readers a good view into communism. I think it could go better in the article about mass murder. What if we changed the picture to something more relevant about what communism is? A Picture of Stalin?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 12:09, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Communism

2009-10-20T16:08:37Z

Cidd11: /* Main Image */ new section

Hugo Chavez

2009-10-20T16:02:51Z

Cidd11:

[[Image:chavez.jpg|175px|right|thumb|Hugo Chavez]]
'''Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías''' (b. July 28, 1954) is the repressive [[leftist]] [[dictator]] of the Bolivarian Republic of [[Venezuela]]. Chávez assumed power as President in 1998 and pledged to aid Venezuela's poor majority. Fraudulent elections were held in 2000 and in 2006 Chavez retained his authoritarian power. His disastrous socialist economic policies have lead to food shortages, quotas, and rationing in his country, and caused thousands to flee.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Human rights concerns==
Hugo Chávez is a great friend of the tyrannical [[Cuban]] despot [[Fidel Castro]] and is said to have drawn his political style through influences such as [[Che Guevara]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Simon Bolivar]]. The U.S. State Department ''Report on Global Anti-Semitism'' cited Chavez in August 2004 warning citizens against following the lead of Jewish citizens in the effort to overturn his referendum victory.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm Report on Global Anti-Semitism] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, [[Human Rights]], and Labor, January 5, 2005. </ref> Chavez has also embraced a number of world leaders that have hostile relations with the United States, including Holocaust-denier [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], the President of [[Iran]], who Chavez has referred to as "my brother".<ref>[http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/07/31/en_pol_art_31A756133.shtml Chávez decorated in Iran; initials cooperation pacts]</ref> U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]] said of Chavez, "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern-day Simon Bolivar, but all he is is an everyday thug."<ref>[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden092206.php3 Back to the old days, if only for a minute], Wesley Pruden, ''Jewish World Review'', Sept. 22, 2006.</ref> He is also considered to be an ally of [[leftist]] [[Ecuador|Ecuadorian]] president [[Rafael Correa]], [[Bolivia|Bolivian]] president [[Evo Morales]] and the president of [[Nicaragua]], [[Daniel Ortega]] ... all radical leftists.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6187364.stm Correa]</ref>

In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2085952,00.html Chávez silences critical TV station], Rory Carroll, ''The Guardian'', May 23, 2007.</ref> Crowds of students demonstrated saying they feared for the future of human rights in Venezuala. National Guard troops were ordered to fire tear gas and rubber bullets. Two students were injured, a third was hit with a tear gas canister, and about 20 people needed emergency medical attention for inhaling tear gas. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/28/ap3763178.html Troops Fire Upon Protesters in Venezuela], Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press, 05.28.07. Retrieved from Forbes.com 05/31/07. </ref>

Chavez has said, “I am going to go after those who resist the revolution and eliminate them one by one.”<ref>[http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jul/07/guest_commentary_we_must_help_venezuela_because_fr/ Because Freedom Matters], By U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV and Blanquita Cullm, ''Naples Daily News'', July 7, 2007.</ref>

===Trafficking in Persons===
Venezuela under Chavez has been on the U.S. State Department’s Tier 3 list for trafficking in persons since 2004, which means that the government is categorized as one that has failed to make significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with the minium standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons. The State Department’s June 2007 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report maintains that Venezuela is a source, transit, and destination country for women and children trafficked for sexual exploitation and forced labor.<ref>U.S. Department of State, [http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2007/ Trafficking in Persons Report], June 12, 2007, p. 207.</ref>

==Relations with US==
[[File:Chavez Obama.jpg|thumb|At the Fifth Summit of the Americas.]]
Foreign relations between the [[United States of America]] and [[Venezuela]] are presently unstable. Chavez often criticizes the United States for its 'imperialism' on his radio segment 'Alo Presidente', and alleges the United States's supported a 2002 coup in Venezuela which toppled Chávez momentarily and later removed by Chávez supporters, also known as 'Chávistas'. Venezuela is heavily dependent upon trade revenue from oil sales to the United States.

===Terrorism===
In May 2006, the State Department determined that, pursuant to Section 40A of the [[Arms Export Control Act]], Venezuela was not fully cooperating with U.S. [[antiterrorism]] efforts. This triggered a prohibition on the sale or license of defense articles and services to Venezuela. Other countries on the Section 40A list include [[Cuba]], [[Iran]], [[North Korea]], and [[Syria]], not to be confused with the "state sponsors of
terrorism" list under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, which currently includes Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. The State Department asserted that the Section 40A determination was based on Venezuela’s near lack of antiterrorism cooperation over the last year, citing its support for Iraqi insurgents and Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities, the country’s status as a safe haven for Colombian and Basque terrorist groups, and its effort to derail hemispheric efforts to advance counter-terrorism policies in the OAS. In May 2007, the State Department again included Venezuela in its annual Section 40A determination that it was not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

In late April 2007, the State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which asserted that President Chávez "persisted in public criticism of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, deepened Venezuelan relationships with Iran and Cuba, and was unwilling to prevent Venezuelan territory from being used as a safe haven" by Colombian terrorist groups.

There have been long-held suspicions that Chávez has supported leftist Colombian guerrillas, although Chávez denies such support. The State Department’s terrorism report maintains that units of Colombia’s two leftist terrorist groups — the [[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]] (FARC) and the [[National Liberation Army]] (ELN) — often crossed into Venezuela "to rest and regroup with relative impunity."

In addition, according to the report, splinter groups of the FARC and a rightist terrorist group, the [[AUC|United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia]] (AUC) reportedly operate in various parts of the country and are involved in drug trafficking. The report maintained, however, that "it remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan
Government provided material support to Colombian terrorists."

In addition, according to the report, Venezuelan citizenship, identity, and travel documents remained easy to obtain, making the country a potentially attractive waystation for terrorists. In July 13, 2006, congressional testimony, the State Department’s Principal Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Frank Urbancic, asserted that the United States was detaining increasing numbers of third-country aliens at its borders carrying falsified or fraudulently issued Venezuelan documents. U.S. officials also have expressed concerns about President Chávez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, but Chávez defends his relationship with Cuba. Overall Venezuelan support to Cuba is estimated to be more than $2 billion a year.<ref>Frances Robles and Phil Gunson, ''Cuba Spotlights Chávez Friendship,'' Miami Herald, January 26, 2007.</ref> Venezuela supplies some 90,000 barrels of oil per day to Cuba on a concessionary basis under PetroCaribe. In return, Venezuela has received support from thousands of Cuban health care workers and sports instructors in the country.

During an April 2005 trip to Cuba, Presidents Chávez and Castro announced commercial deals worth over $400 million, including a joint shipyard to build small navy ships and a joint housing construction company. In January 2007, a delegation of Cuban officials visited Caracas and signed a number of agreements to increase economic linkages, including an agreement for joint oil exploration in both countries.

PdVSA is also involved in refurbishing an unfinished oil refinery in Cienfuegos, Cuba. Beyond Latin America, the Bush Administration has expressed concerns with Venezuela’s growing relations with Iran. In February 2006, Secretary of State Rice referred to Venezuela, along with Cuba, as “sidekicks” of Iran in reference to those countries’ votes in the International Atomic Energy Agency against reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its uranium enrichment program.<ref>Pablo Bachelet, “Rice Bashes Venezuelan Leader, Politics,” Miami Herald, February 17, 2006; House International Relations Committee, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007
International Affairs Budget, Testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, February
16, 2006.</ref> In testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in February 2006, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte expressed concern that President Chávez "is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea."<ref>Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Hearing on World Wide Threats, Testimony of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, February 2, 2006.</ref> ran and Venezuela signed an agreement for a $200 million fund to finance joint investment and social projects, and commercial agreements in the early stages include plans for a cement factory, oil exploration in the Orinoco River belt, and a joint operation to build oil and liquid natural gas tankers.<ref>Steven Dudley, "Chávez’s Wooing of Iran Called Troubling," Miami Herald, March 2, 2006.</ref> During a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela in mid-January 2007, the two countries announced they would use a $2 billion investment fund to finance projects in both countries and other countries as well.<ref>Simon Romero, ''Iranian President Visits Venezuela to Strengthen Ties,'' New York Times, January 14, 2007.</ref>

Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about relations between Venezuela and Iran. In the 110th Congress, H.Res. 435 (Klein) would, among its provisions, express concern over national security implications of the relationship between the leaders of Iran and Venezuela.

==Oil monopoly==
[[Image:Hugo-chavez8.jpg|left|175px|thumb|Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with Fidel Castro.]]
Through Venezuela's state owned petroleum industry and membership in [[OPEC]], Chávez has now used powers granted to him by Parliament to increase oil prices, adding revenue for the Bolivarianist projects. Countries such as the United States have criticized Chávez for the increase in cost for crude oil. Chavez is at the forefront of wanting to set crude oil prices at $60 a barrel minimum, according to the ''Asia Times''<ref>[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HL07Dj01.html ''Bush, OPEC and Chavez of Arabia''], Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, 7 December 2006.</ref>

==Drug trafficing==
The ''Associated Press'' reported in July 2007 that since Chavez's ascension to power, illegal narcotics passing through Venezuela from [[Colombia]] has risen by as much as 30 tons a year and now accounts for roughly a third of the world's supply of [[cocaine]]. Mildred Camero who was in charge of Venezuela's anti-drug efforts stated, "[[Caracas]] is replacing [[Bogota]] as a center of everything related to drug operations." Camero was fired in 2005 after reporting high-level corruption. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/01/ap3875048.html Venezuela Becomes Cocaine Conduit], By Ian James and Frank Bajak, ''Associated Press'', 1 July 2007. Retrieved from Forbes.com 8 July 2007.</ref>

==Subversion==

According to the ''Washington Post'' Chavez has been accused of supplying weapons to Colombian rebels, of financing Bolivian and Ecuadorian groups seeking to establish "Marxist" states, and of being, with Cuban leader Fidel Castro's guidance, a "[[subversion (political)|subversive]]" everywhere else in the region. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501420.html?nav=rss_world/centralamerica ''Dealing With the Good and Bad Hugo Chavez''], Marcela Sanchez The Washington Post 25 August 2005.</ref>

==Religious==
Chavez demanded that [[Pope Benedict]] apologize for saying the Roman Catholic Church purified Indians in Latin America. Chavez called the treatment of Indians after [[Christopher Columbus]] landed in 1492 a "holocaust".<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1819661120070519 Chavez demands Pope apologize for Indian comments], Reuters, May 19, 2007</ref>

==Quotes==
*ON closure of RCTV, claiming the network's broadcasts amounted to a "permanent attack on public morals" with cartoons that were "poisoned with hatred, violence and even sex."

*"Private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost...If banks don't agree with this, it's better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me."

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

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Hugo Chavez|Articles about '''Hugo Chavez''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/] An in depth view on Venezuela under Hugo Chávez.
*[http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=706] An overview of articles on Venezuela's business under Hugo Chávez.
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_24_06_AVL.html ''Why The Left Should Cringe at The Mention of Hugo Chavez''], Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Independent Institute, February 24, 2006.
*[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200108/ai_kepm313968 ''Bolivar, Dictator or Paladin?''] Interview: Hugo Chavez talks about Venezuela, Maria Amparo Lasso, Newsweek, Aug 20, 2001.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chavez, Hugo}}
[[Category:Venezuela]]
[[Category:Dictators]]

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-20T16:02:12Z

Cidd11: /* Reliable Sources? */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-16T21:36:45Z

Cidd11:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)
::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

'''Just so I may be sure'''

I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

: Pretending there is forgiveness without repentance is liberal folly. The "Father forgive them ..." and the adulteress story are liberal favorites because they do mislead so many about this. Virtually all scholars agree they are not authentic.

: Thanks for your best wishes. How about editing yourself for a verse or two?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:Well that isn't the issue I'm adressing but alright. I don't see how they mislay people at all. In fact I find those two verses highly inspiring. The "forgive them" since it shows his compassion for people even in his dying hours. The adultress story is also a huge life saver for many as it takes away from a common used atheist tack about stoning. As I stated before that is a brilliant addition to the Bible no matter who added it. Though It seems as though you are attempting to remove one bias simply to inject another.

::On an unrelated note which verses are you having need to translate? Or which books are you working on the most at the moment?

--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:12, 16 October 2009 (EDT)Cidd11

:: [[Mark_9-16_(Translated)]] has not-yet-translated verses in chapters 12, 13, 15 and 16. Take your pick, and enjoy! I look forward to learning from your edits. In addition to the KJV verses in that entry, many other sources are available freely on the internet, including the original Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Alright. Though Im just wondering if you prefer me to take reference from KJV or NIV?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 17:36, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-16T21:23:38Z

Cidd11: /* Reliable Sources? */

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-16T21:12:51Z

Cidd11:

Hugo Chavez

2009-10-16T21:03:45Z

Cidd11:

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-16T20:59:55Z

Cidd11: /* Reliable Sources? */ new section

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-16T20:42:15Z

Cidd11:

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-16T20:39:16Z

Cidd11:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)
::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

'''Just so I may be sure'''

I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out gambling and stick with to cast lots is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-16T20:37:48Z

Cidd11:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

(continuing from archive)

==Purpose, Guidelines and Examples==

... (I intersperse my replies in Daniel's comments below.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT))

As re. some of the things on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] page;

'''#Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.'''

This is true, but that is simple to rectify, by simply substituting modern equivalents for KJV words such as ''prevent'' or ''brigands''. (''thee'' and ''thou'', while often mentioned as expendable, actually to served to distinguish btwn plural and singular). While i am not a man of letters, i have seldom had a problem with archaic KJV words, for as in real life, context and conveys meaning. And to understand the Bible, you must really want to, no matter what it results in personally, and enter into it with your heart and soul. (Prov 2:3-5) "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; {4} If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; {5} Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." And i often come short in this.

However, like most attempts as revisions, this CP Bible goes beyond this. Bible translation is not to be undertaken by amateurs, and any one who has done extensive word studies should know that one Hebrew or Greek word can have a variety of meanings, depending on contextual, grammatical, and other factors, and any revisions must be done in the fear of God.

''':Rest assured we all fear God. And we welcome your contributions to the project itself, rather than simply talking about it.'''

The issues as i see it in modern translations are,

A. Type of translation. Thought for thought, or "Dynamic Equivalency" (NIV), is to be avoided as one's prime source, especially considering issue #2. This uses extensive paraphrasing, but results in the translators idea of what a text says, which can easily be contrary to various degrees to its unadulterated sense. Few would rely on this method as their primary means in having a will with conditions translated. While word for word type translations paraphrase some words in deference to readability, it is much reduced. In addition, the KJV places most supplied words in ''italics'', so that at least the reader knows. Thus John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ''he'', ye shall die in your sins." And John 18:6" "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am ''he'', they went backward, and fell to the ground." Perhaps the Greek demands the ''he'', as likely in Jn. 9:9, but it is helpful to know. Another example shows how concise a reading may be without the supplied words (and the need for commas: (Job 34:10) "Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, ''that he should do'' wickedness; and ''from'' the Almighty, ''that he should commit'' iniquity."

B. The spirit of the translator, which as you convey, has overall been shown to be leaning port side to various degrees, from using the phrase "God directed" rather than "God commanded" to more overt examples. They also can tend to lack consistent use of terms.

C. The stream of mss, which is certainly a heavily debated issue, and i am not well versed in it to engage is much of a debate. From what i understand, modern translations are based upon the older Alexandrian text, A and B, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (the latter much under lock and key), while the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) of the Byzantine family of mss (though not exclusively?), otherwise known as the Majority text (MT). The TR is an edited version that provided one standard text out of available ones at that time in the West, with the Stephanus printed version being an edited version of TR text edited by Erasmus.

The premise behind the modern translation's use of the Alexandrian text is that older is more accurate, although the most serious apparent discrepancies occur in them, and the Byzantine texts could easily be copies of even more ancient mss which they replaced. Problematic texts also exist in the TR, though i think Bruce estimates such consist of only 1.5% of the whole Bible, and most all the alleged discrepancies which are bandied about are not true contradictions, and are often inconsequential spelling or structural variations, while most others have reasonable explanations. [Due to such most evangelicals hold that inerrancy (1Tim. 3:16) refers to the original mss. Here i understand why some argue the KJV is actually inspired, as to be the whole word of God, rather than containing the words of God. Plus who among the multitudes of believers ever really had a original to read from? But having entrusted man with His words, God is under no obligation to preserve them, yet both the mss evidence and its manifest degree of preservation, despite its unparalleled scope, testifies to gracious supernatural superintendence. And despite some variant readings or possibly copyist errors (mainly with numbers), no doctrine is compromised, and that truth is preserved for us. And it comes true as we trust and obey. But sorry for digressing.]

'''''*There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ'''''

I would not say that the original languages are deficient, but that the problem is with the reception. This does not mean other words have been tried for phrases such as "express imageG5481 of his person" (Heb. 1:3), or "thought it not robberyG725 to be equalG2470 with God: But made himself of no reputation,G2758 G1438", but there is no need.

#First Example - Liberal Falsehood

'''''*Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing'''''

With all due respect, this examples poor Bible exegesis, and sets a negative precedent for proposed changes. There are other examples in the synoptics are of supplementary material, which is one reason for more than one gospel, and other texts which a supposed contradiction occurs, but is not such thing, and what is liberal is the attempt to use such to misconstrue such to be editorial interpolations, in seeking to impugn the integrity of the Bible as a whole. Here Jesus is easily seen to be referring to the overall lack of cognizance that He truly was their Messiah. As scripture interprets scripture, even a quick search show this to be this case: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Act 3:17) While there were some who comprehended whop Jesus was, most saw Him as a blasphemer, claiming to be equal with God (which in fact He was, as being His only Son in that sense: Jn. 5:18; 19:7). The word "wot" could be changed however, though it not hard to ''perceive'' what that means.

''':Daniel, you seem to be going round-and-round here, while rejecting the type of serious scholarship that you emphasize earlier as being so important. Scholars recognize that the phrase is not authentic, and it is undeniably liberal. Case closed, and your resistance to logic here is troubling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

'''#Second Example - Dishonestly Shrewd

''At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful".
But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here?'''''

The answer is no, and thus the KJV uses "wisely", as in prudently. This correlates to Prov 14:15: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (as was Jacob in also seen as prudent in his dealings with businessman Laban)

The steward, which i still find better than "manager" (are we "managers" of the grace of God?), facing homelessness, gained nothing personal except preserve his life (the liberal might have had the gov. take care of him for life) and benefited others, but not a political habit, or an ongoing Robin Hood (legend). moreover, as he must have known his boss would know, the story may imply he had some sort of leeway. The story actually can be seen to differentiate between serious crime with malevolent motives, versus that which is akin to stealing medicine for the sick, or as in, "do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." (Prv. 6:30,31)

However, the use of this story was not to teach morality, but prudence, applicable to spiritual life.

:"wisely" is not as good as "resourceful", a word unavailable to the [[KJV]] translators. Again, you talk and talk with addressing the substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

'''''the King James Version does not use "accountable to God" in translating Romans 3:19; good modern translations do.'''''

For good reason. The Greek word ''hupodikos'', for ''guilty'' only occurs once in the N.T., and Strong's states it denotes, hupodikos
hoop-od'-ee-kos
From G5259 and G1349; under sentence, that is, (by implication) condemned: - guilty.

Thayer Definition:
1) under judgment, one who lost his suit
2) debtor to one, owing satisfaction to
2a) of liable to punishment from God

(Rom 3:19) "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"under" as in "under the law" is never trans. accountable either, while the word for account, as in Mt. 12:36, Rm. 14:12, dos not occur here.

'''''Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias'''''

Ditch thought-for-thought as much as possible, and just replace archaic words, in anything.
''
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.''

This is actually more a liberal practice. Simply because Jn 8. is found in the majority of mss does not necessarily mean it was added, and evidence from the 4th century supports its inclusion. http://www.textexcavation.com/pericopedeadultera.html as well as other arguments, http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP27.htm, which the CP essay page gives short shrift to. Some of the "Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the periscope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it." http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

Nor is the theology behind it liberal, which seems to be the main reason it is targeted, regardless of their misappropriation of it, but it is consistent with Jesus other dealings with penitent adulteress, and rebuke of proud Pharisees (though modern Jewish apologists defend them). Commanding her to "sin not more" itself completely sinks the liberal moral foundation, if sin is defined Biblically (no as in opposing the Fairness Doctrine).

I am no stranger to grievous "wresting" of Scripture by liberals, as i have refuted much of it, but the premise that this is a liberal add on which should be excluded due to their invocation of it (to censure criticizing or punishing the immoral conduct they defend) must also require the elimination of other text, such as the often quoted "judge not and ye shall not be judged, (Mt. 7:1), and Romans 2:1. Rather than exclusion, explanatory notes could be beneficial.

'''#Third Example - Socialism

*the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.'''

I do not know where the ESV found so many.

KJV (N.T.) occurrences

G2040 ἐργάτης ergatēs
Total KJV Occurrences: 17

G4904 συνεργός sunergos
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

I would recommend the King James Concordance dictionary add on to the E-Sword module, which shows all the ways most all Hebrew/Greek words are rendered.

Again, i see Bible translation as a solemn undertaking, and while truly archaic words might be reverently replaced with true equivalents, more than that I fear and oppose. Rather than such, conservative commentary might be prayerfully considered as needed. Yet the Old commentaries by men as [[Matthew Henry]], [[Adam Clarke]], etc. provide much, and Mon-Fri have been posting a chapter of the Bible with such commentary for some time. http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=15497.new#new

What would be helpful is if CP would be to get back the reftagger template, so every verse pops-up on mouse over! [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:26, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

''': Daniel, the project is proceeding and we welcome your ''concise'' comments and contributions. Please see guideline #10. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 8 October 2009 (EDT)'''

::Re. Lk. 23:34, and rejecting serious scholarship that i emphasize, that was in primarily in regards translating words, esp. on a global scale, whereas scholarship as regards mss issues is another aspect. What qualifies as the "best mansucripts" and the absence of this verse in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which much disagree with each other, substantially, and is accused of being much affected by liberals due to the absence of some strong words like blood and fasting where the TR contains them), is part of the aforementioned mss controversy. Luke 22:43-44 is also missing from Vaticanus

::However, my contention was in regard to interpretation of Lk. 23:34, not its wording or mss inclusion, and while in interpretation scholarship is often needed, yet a good Berean should be able to discern the meaning of most already translated texts,, by God's Spirit, and with tools available today if needed. And in this case, you will not find conservative commentators rendering this as pandering to liberals. Barnes: "Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_53:12; “He made intercession for the transgressors.”' Clarke: " They know not what they do - If ignorance do not excuse a crime, it at least diminishes the atrocity of it. However, these persons well knew that they were crucifying an innocent man; but they did not know that, by this act of theirs, they were bringing down on themselves and on their country the heaviest judgments of God." Archibald Thomas Robertson (WORD PICTURES): "Father forgive them (Pater, aphes autois). Second aorist active imperative of aphiēmi, with dative case. Some of the oldest and best documents do not contain this verse, and yet, while it is not certain that it is a part of Luke’s Gospel, it is certain that Jesus spoke these words, for they are utterly unlike any one else." And the list can go on.

'''and it is undeniably liberal'''''Italic text''

::This is not promoting the liberal victim mentality, or false innocence, and Acts 3:17 does conflate with this. And even though whom Peter charged with having a part in crucifying Christ, however ignorant they had been, were threatened with sure judgment, and convicted of their sins, and thus repented. The KJV is not a Bible for liberals, but even the devil can misuse Scripture. Aside from the mss issue, sound interpretation is the answer, not elimination of texts due to how they might be misused.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I know what the problem here is. Go [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise here] and come back when you understand this.

:::PS: I've spaced out edits so we can tell other comments apart form your massive walls of text that nobody's reading. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:46, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the spacing, but my prolixity is in proportion to the gravity of the project, and the relative issues I addressed, and my responses to such are actually rather brief, considering their importance. As for participating, if it were only a matter of replacing archaic words, or those whose meaning has changed (including ''liberal'') I would be interested, but I would not want anyone to engage in a project that expunges texts, after the manner of the provided examples.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 12:52, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::None of us would "engage in a project that expunges texts" either. But if you're going to adamantly insist on inclusion of a few discredited, liberal passages that scholars unanimously recognize as not being authentic and all respected modern translations state were not in the earliest manuscripts, then you may want to participate in yet another liberal translation project instead. The planned successor to the [[TNIV]], widely criticized for its liberal bias, may be the best place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Forseen Problems,Notes and Commentary ==

I think this is an excellent idea, a conservative Bible, which could greatly benifit many. But, the reason for putting this out should be for edifying Christians and for witnessing to non-christians, not as a rebuff to any new liberal translation. I see you believe there are some later added 'liberal' verses, which is fine. personally I believe that the entire bible is the inspired Word Of God, and to question one verses authenticity means questioning the entire Bibles authenticity. I would recommend a conservative commentary with conservative notes, then you can voice your opinions about these verses and other subjects and leave the Biblical text intact.I think this is a phenominal idea, just I question the right to add or remove verses from the Bible. Perhaps you were planning to do something like what I mentioned above anyway. I look forward to getting involved in this in any way I can. Veritas Vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 12:41, 9 October 2009 (EDT))

:It would be far safer and more trusted and received than yet another work engaging in what constitutes Scripture, instead, replace truly archaic words as needed. Ray Comfort.s ''Evidence Bible'' is along the idea that you propose. A conservative response to such works as the skeptics annotated Bible could be useful, if done studiously. And and words could hyperlink to corresponding ref. works. But the work is already underway.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::We have 10 guidelines; all are important to produce the best Bible possible. Leaving in liberal vandalism such as the [[adulteress story]] and the "forgive them, they know not what their doing," both of which deny the need for repentance, would be contrary to all scholarship, contrary to the original manuscripts, and contrary to the true biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:::How do you find out which are the original manuscripts? My New American Bible doesn't say what manuscripts were used to make that translation of the Bible. Mr. Schlafly, I have heard you speak of the original manuscripts not containing those verses - would you please point me to where I can find them? We're going to have a class on bible translations with my catechism class next week and I would like to raise some of the things I'm learning from the project here. Thanks in advance, Cameron.

::::You may have seen Mr. Schlafly make this comment with reference to the adulteress story in particular. You can learn a bit about this passage and its dubious history [[Adulteress story|here]]. I do not believe that there is fixed set of manuscripts that are accepted as "original" by everyone... careful scholarship is required to reconstruct the original text from extant early sources. The vast majority of such early sources exclude this story and others. If you Google around for "pericope de adultera" you will find all the information you could possibly want about this story, and learn much about the oldest Biblical manuscripts along the way. --17:05, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::In addition to Mark's astute comments, Cameron, please realize that all modern translations (except the [[NKJV]], 1982) are based on the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts for the New Testament. More importantly, please realize that liberal bias introduces more error in modern translations than legitimate differences in interpretation of the ancient texts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Aside from mss issues, excluding these periscopes based upon them not teaching repentance is unwarranted, and, by itself, is not a sound hermeneutic.

How "go and sin not more" (Jn. 8:11; cf. 5:14) does not teach repentance i fail to see, while Lk. 23:34, as shown before, is easily interpreted by Acts 3:17, and which "ignorant" people are clearly commanded, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted...

In addition, many salvific texts in John do not mention repentance, though that is implicit in believing, and Jn. 8:11 helps to establish that.

For what it is worth, I think since 1897, Roman Catholic exegetes are required to hold the Pericope Adulterae as genuine.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

: Daniel, you're most welcome to contribute to the project. The bottom line is that this passage is not in the earliest manuscripts and there are many doctrinal and historical flaws to it, as explained in [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]. "Go and sin no more" is obviously not repentance. But let's not get hung up on a handful of verses. There are many more verses that await our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:53, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful? ==
After reading more about this project I understand it less. If existing translations of the Bible are bad because of a liberal bias, shouldn't the goal be to create a neutral translation instead of a translation with conservative bias? Changing the political direction does not add any credibility to the resulting translation. Removing the perceived bias without adding your own bias could be useful. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 13:32, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
:Wouldn't "neutral" be the same as "compromise", politically-speaking? Right now there is a "gender-neutral" version of the Bible on store shelves, because someone insisted and demanded that God be represented that way. As far as a conservative version goes, it means "getting back to basics". ''"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"'' That's what Abraham Lincoln himself said about conservatism, and it applies here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:09, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Karajou. Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Neither of those arguments make any sense. You're assuming liberal and conservative bias lie on the same scale, with conservative at one end and liberal at the other. Neutral does not mean 50% conservative bias and 50% liberal bias. Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 13:14, 14 October 2009 (CDT)
::::It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:19, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism. Furthermore, I've seen no proof of liberals being liars or lunatics in any walks of life. Some liberals are liars, and some liberals are lunatics, but no sweeping generalization like that can safely be made. For that matter, some conservatives are liars, and some conservatives are lunatics, but not all conservatives are lunatics or liars either. There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly.--[[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:54, 15 October 2009 (CDT)

:::God forbid that a neutral translation would mean gender-neutral, as while "quit you like men, be strong" (1Cor. 16:33; cf. 1Sam. 4:9) could be rendered, "act like men", or "act manly", the man part is valid. But being free from lib bias should not be determined by whether it may be misappropriated to sound liberal, or otherwise hijacked. Jesus fed the hungry, but would not let Himself be turned into a socialistic vending machine. (Jn. 6:26,27) And the early disciples did live as a community, but there were critical things that enabled that, and differences which exclude Communism from using it an an example, or seeing its success. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:11, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

::::We're not going to change any original intent with this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::A commitment not to change original intent must regard that the precise words of the original had a purpose, and this would much restrains interpretive renderings, though some degree of that is sometimes necessary. However, in the proposed CP version of Mt. 1:1, ''son'' is replaced with the liberal gender-neutral ''descendant'', as if God "sent His only begotten decedent" might later be acceptable.

:::::Worse, in 1:18 ''pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide'', and likewise in v.20, for the Holy (''hagios'', otherwise translated in KJV as holy, or saints) Ghost (''pneuma'' - breath). disregards His sanctity (which liberals dislike). Also, ''Guide'' interprets breath as according to His guiding function, while His primary distinctive effect in N.T. is that of giving life, a purely Divine attribute, and which the human ''pneuma'' also denotes. The body without the spirit is dead, (Jn. 2:26). Holy Spirit need not to be changed. I will place my comments on that talk page.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:55, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Lock all article pages related to this project and have users present their proposed edits on the talk pages to be considered and approved or rejected by others. This would for all intents and purposes end the vast majority of vandalism to this project. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:14, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

: A good suggestion, but I don't think it is necessary or that the people who hate God and the Bible would go away based on this. But your idea is worth keeping in mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Do not add or take from the word of God ==

Most conservative Bible scholars (including the late Dr. Vernon McGee) have considered the "adulteress story" authentic. Jesus was not condoning adultery, as He said to "go and sin no more". These verses were REMOVED from some later translations, but they do appear in most of the good manuscripts.

Also, the parables of the Lord should not be twisted to conform to modern concepts of "free market" which did not even exist in the times when the Bible was written. The ancient nation of Israel was tribal, which means it was agrarian and collective in some ways, and proto-capitalistic in others. Let the Word speak for itself, instead of spinning it to make it fit modern ideologies which you think are "conservative". (Free market isn't a conservative idea anyway; it's a libertarian one.)
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:10, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:So, undoubtedly, you are also opposed to the "gender-neutral" Bibles that change verses that use words like "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." Also, I am sure I correctly assume you are opposed to the Message Bible, which pretty much changes everything. Psalm 23:4 was my first introduction to the ridiculousness of the Message:
<blockquote>
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (KJV)
 
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. (NIV)
 
Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure. (MSG)
</blockquote>
:The CBP is not going to be anything near the Message's bastardization of the Bible. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:00, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

::As Jinx suggests, CogitoErgoSum, where were you as so many liberal translations of the Bible have distorted it? I bet you didn't raise even an eyebrow.

::We're not going to distort anything here. We are removing the liberal bias that others, probably with your tacit compliance, have inserted and used to twist the Bible.

::Thanks, however, for telling us how some modern versions even left out the "go and sin no more" addition to the adulteress story. Liberals have no self-restraint!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

:::"probably with your tacit compliance". I think that doubtful, if he is a devotee of McGee, even if his technical commentary may sound somewhat liberal. Capitalism surely is supported in the Bible in any case. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:27, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

Not only do I find this entire concept blasphemous, it is also a modern day tower of Babel. Going into the Scripture within presuppositions of political beliefs is appalling. To conform the Bible to such things as "supporting the free market" is lunacy. The only thing I can say is a repeat of Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".-Shane

:There seems to be a lot of babbling going on about this project, yes. The only presuppositions I see going into this project are the presuppositions of the original intent of the Bible authors. They weren't mealy-mouthed populous-appeasers who avoided the subject of Hell and used "gender-inclusive" language to appease thin-skinned, English-ignorant liberals. They wrote the hard truths that God wanted mankind to learn. It seems that as time has gone on, each successive English translation of the Bible has become wimpier than the last. We're very nearly at the point where the message of salvation, as translated by liberal translators, can be summed up as "All paths lead to God" instead of "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 16:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Isaac Newton and "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" ==

Important project! This is uncompleted business from [[Isaac Newton]]'s day. Newton "wrote the book" on the conservative Bible project and getting rid of liberal and un-Christian corruptions in the Bible. Google books has it at ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22An+Historical+Account+of+Two+Notable+Corruptions+of+Scripture%22#v=onepage&q=&f=false An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]''. Newton removed the parts of 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16 that do not appear in the earliest [[Koine Greek]] [[New Testament]] manuscripts. The first one is called the ''[[Johannine Comma]]'' in Latin, and you can read more about it at [http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma theopedia] and [http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html bible-researcher]. These passages in the KJV are (with the unoriginal parts added later in '''''red'''''):

:7 For there are three that bear record ['''''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,'''''] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)
:And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God ['''''was manifest in the flesh'''''], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

In [[Koine Greek]]:

:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ['''''ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ'''''] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (1 John 5:7-8)
:και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος ['''''εφανερωθη εν σαρκι'''''] εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη. (1 Timothy 3:16)

[[User:SRFoster|SRFoster]] 00:56, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Peter or Jesus's sentence as the basis for Christianity? ==

One think I've always puzzled about the Bible is that part (Matt. 16:15-20) when Jesus asks the disciples what they think about him. Only Peter answers correctly, and says that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Then Jesus replies that weird (meaning: I can't get a good translation of what he said!!!) answer that Peter is a stone and over that stone Jesus's church will be build.

I can't believe that Jesus was saying that the stone was '''Peter'''. I think it should be clear that the stone is '''Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God'''. But of course the translations are ambiguous, and the official Roman Catholic interpretation is that the stone is Peter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 18:19, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

: Offhand, I don't know the answer, but I do know this is controversial. Let's try to translate it here and see where we get and what we learn. Go ahead and give it a try at [[Matthew_10-19_(Translated)#Chapter_16]]. I see that we've already have a start there, but improvements are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:04, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Simon, called Peter (Matthew 4:18) is the rock upon which the earthly church was built. The name Peter is from the greek Petros while the word rock is petra. Jesus goes on to explain about the relationship between the earthly church in Matthew 16:19. It is Peter that is always mentioned first in a list of apostles in all four gospels, it was Peter that was giving the sermon at Pentecost in Acts, and it was Peter who selected a new apostle as a replacement for Judas, and it was Peter who was the first Pope. I don't see how Matthew 16:19 could refer to anyone else as being the foundation for the church. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 00:09, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
Tell me JohnnyS, are the following verses you overlooked statements about Peter, or is the word "rock" reserved exclusively for God?
:He is the '''Rock''', his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
:But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the '''Rock''' of his salvation. (Deuteronomy 32:15)
:For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a '''rock''', save our God? (2 Samuel 22:2)
:In God is my salvation and my glory: the '''rock''' of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. (Psalm 62:7)
:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a '''rock''': And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a '''rock'''. (Matthew 7:24,25)
:Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a '''rock''' of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. (1 Peter 2:7,8...yes, ''that'' Peter!)
::Oh, the Greek word "petros" means "stone", which agrees with Pete's other, original name "Cephas" (John 1:32). The word of Jesus in Matthew 16:19 regards Peter's statement of faith in Christ; it is not, nor has it ever been, a declaration that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built. Christ is the rock, the head of the corner, the foundation stone, and their are plenty of verses which support it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:33, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::R.C. apologists negate the distinction made in the Greek but invoking Aramaic, in which there is no distinction, and which it is held Jesus spoke (some assert Mat. was originally written in Heb.). However, i suppose this approach would also negate helpful distinctions made in other texts, such as when Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" (Jn. 21:15-17) A better way is rightly interpret the text here (and generally the gospels) is to look for confirmation in the rest of the promised (Jn. 16:12-14) revelation, in which we see the application and the doctrine behind what Christ declared

:::I see a play upon words in v. 18, with the subject of v. 17 ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,") being the revelation Peter professed (and was blessed by) in v. 16, and "upon this rock" referring to the same. If we divorce v. 15 then it would be Peter. As partly substantiated above, that the immovable "Rock" (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication, is Christ himself, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible, (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16), and confirmed by Peter himself. Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). No such confirmation is given as concerns Peter being the foundational Rock. In addition, the means by which the believer and church overcomes is faith. (1Jn. 2:13; 5:4).

:::While Peter is manifest as the initial brethren type leader of the apostles and leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and exercising a pastoral care of the churches, (1Pet. 1:1ff) he is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, and no command is given to the church to recognize a supreme papal office, nor does he refer to himself as such.

:::And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament for priests. God preserves His church in faith, which is essentially a spiritual entity, (1Cor. 12:13), by sovereignly raising up prophets, (cf. Hos. 12:13) and Luther, despite his faults, was a type of such. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:19, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Daniel, your analysis is fascinating, but you seem to want to ''talk'' rather than contribute substantively. We're focused on substance here and the entries are what what people read most. An encyclopedia is more valuable to users than a chat site. Please contribute to the entries themselves here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Translation or Paraphrase? ==

There is a distinct difference between a translation and a paraphrase. You have been quoting from both,I wonder if this this is going to be cosidered a Translation or a paraphrase, I would cosider it a paraphrase so far in my opinion which is fine. In order to make it a true Translation, you would pretty much have to use all the original languages and go from there. However I think this would make a great paraphrase. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 15:39, 13 October 2009 (EDT))

:This is a "thought-for-thought" translations, just as the best-selling modern translation (NIV) is. No one calls the [[NIV]] a "paraphrase".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::That is probably because the NIV was from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts]. The thought for thought aspect of the translation means that it isn't held to the sentence structure as the KJV is (reading the KJV interlinear Greek is the same word order as the KJV English is). However, all of the word choice was based on the original texts. This project seems to be much closer to [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_paraphrase_Translations.html paraphrase translations] rather than [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_thought_for_thought_Translations.html thought for thought] or [http://www.bibletranslations.thebaptistpage.net/Bible_Literal_Translations_page1.html literal] translations. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 17:24, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but I believe I can explain. Johnny, the shortcoming of strict translation is that many of the sources employed are themselves somewhat archaic. Languages change with time, and the English language is particularly powerful and dynamic in this respect; it constantly changes and develops to be able to express new concepts with greater precision.
:::Thus, what might have been the best English word to capture the sense of the Greek or Hebrew a hundred years ago may no longer be the best word. For example: a hundred years ago, "gay" might well have been the best word to express a concept like "joyfully carefree." Today, the word has acquired other connotations which make it less suitable and more prone to being misunderstood.
:::Because of this, a two-pronged approach is needed. It is, of course, necessary to be aware of the autographic texts, and informed by them--but it is also necessary to examine previous English translations. This allows a more comprehensive sense of how previous translators have rendered the sense of a passage, as well as making it easier to detect bias and a shifting message as the translations progress. By employing both methods, a truly complete picture emerges.
:::Again, please forgive me if I'm misstating the premise of the project, but this is how I understood it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Ben sums it up well. Johnny, the ancient texts are well understood, and have been for decades. What is less appreciated is how much English changes (and Ben points out) and how biased the professors are who do translations like the [[TNIV]]. The upcoming replacement to the [[NIV]] will pull it off the market and replace it with an Obama-style version. They'll claim it's based in the ancient texts, but it's actually based in liberal politics. Why else would they be pulling the [[NIV]] off the market???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:58, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Command Oversight ==

Everyone:

Under the authority of [[User:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]], I am now going to oversee this Project in the name of the administration. My qualifications are these: I can read [[Greek]] almost as fast as I can read English, and I've begun a study of Biblical [[Hebrew]]. I've also been an administrator for a long time, and I would have the time to devote to this Project that oversight would require.

We'll use this Talk Page as the "desk" for the project.

I'm establishing a Committee of Translators, whose members will be the ones best versed in the ancient languages. I'd like to welcome [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] to this Committee now; he's a lot better educated than I am, and the only reason that ''he'' isn't directing this Project is that he's got a lot of other things on his plate (among them, [[KAL 007]]).

We'll get down some proposed translations through the New Testament first; that's the easiest to write in. I just finished Matthew, and am going to check on Mark. Bert will start to write in Hebrews. We also need to start thinking about formats for the articles and how to link them together in an easily navigable fashion.

In Him,

--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:52, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:That's amazing, Terry, that you've translated Matthew so quickly!!!! Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:07, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello TerryH - I just did an edit to John 3:33 before I realized there might be more to participating here than simply jumping in. I see that you're the leader. I am a high school student studying Greek. I obviously have limited skills but I do have a Greek/English Bible and a lexicon. I would like to help more but don't want to step on any toes. Please let me know. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:47, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Cambrian, your name is suspect but legitimate editors should simply "jump in" and edit. Welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
::It's just my nickname. My real name is Cameron Brian. Should I change my login ID to Cameron? I will do that if people would find my login name suspect. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 00:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

==Dictionaries, Grammars, Texts, Etc.?==
Hi there. What dictionaries, grammars, and critical texts are the translators using for this project? I'm just interested in what books people have access to. Thanks! --[[User:BevisT|BevisT]] 20:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

:We all have access to the internet, which has nearly everything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::You can find the Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible online here http://www.greekbible.com/ and the University of Chicago Library has the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon and Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary online here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/ets/efts/Greek.html [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 23:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

'''Just so I may be sure'''
I am personally slightly disturbed by this whole project but I agree it does have some valid points (modernization and so on) Which I find admirable of course. Its where you start attempting to pick out the liberal bias that worries me

For instance citing the fact that they leave out "gambling" and stick with "to cast lots" is simply a literal translation and in no way supports a liberal bias in His word. Also I fail to see how "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." is a liberal deception. His persecutors did know what they were doing but what He meant (or so we may infer) is that they did not fully know (or accept) that they were killing the Son of God. Hardly a liberal deception.

Your aversion to socialism as well is particularly confusing. I myself with gladly admit to being a socialist but I find no real precedent for socialist language in the Bible. Socialist ideals perhaps but language no. The language you are talking about is used explicitly in Marxism and not advocated by any early Socialist thinkers like Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon so I am miffed by this statement. The terms you also coin are once again an excellent example of a literal translation (laborers and fellows anyway, I have never read a translation with comrade).

The free market references are also just as miffing as we should "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" so I don't see the Bible advocating any precedent for free market capitalism or control style socialism for that matter. This seems to me as though you are attempting to put something entirely unsupported by Biblical claims which is dishonest at best and pure heresy at worst.

One thing I find also odd is the exclusion of the adultress story. Simply saying it is a justification against the death penalty does not make it a liberal view point. Also that story has probably saved countless lives. And I'm sure that if it was unintented to be in there God would not have let it happen. To claim you know better is purely ridiculous. Even if it is I praise God as it has been more beneficial than negative. To say otherwise is in my opinion purely a political issue and not one that should be dishonestly injected into God's word.

Other than these strange ideas I have no problems with the project and wish you good luck!

Cidd11

Talk:Socialism

2009-10-15T02:39:01Z

Cidd11:

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

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

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Socialist" Britain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== DAB's version ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article begins by stating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Just Plain Wrong ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

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

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== So close to communism? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Main Image ==

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

Talk:Socialism

2009-10-14T12:58:56Z

Cidd11:

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-14T12:55:48Z

Cidd11: /* "Silencing" the Media */

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-14T12:55:23Z

Cidd11:

This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)
==This article is surprisingly neutral==
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Dictator!!!!????==
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::...Who was not democratically elected. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'.

It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not surprising. Mr. Homimachong seems to be a fan of Kim Jong il and Hitler and Saddam Husseien, and he can't NOT be a fan of someone like Chavez. If you liked Hitler, you'll like Chavez! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==

you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!

:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::We 'wouldn't' say that Hitler was Germany's "president," considering that he abolished the office after Paul von Hindenburg's death. Nor was he democratically elected. He was 'appointed' to the chancellorship by Hindenburg, and then assumed presidential powers after Hindenburg's death that he was never intended to have. Hence, as Chavez is a democratically elected head of state, you need greater evidence that he is a "dictator." [[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 01:02, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Irony ==

Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.

Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}

== What a disgrace. ==

How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?

And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.

It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]

:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)

==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Pro-Chavez ==

I don't care how Chavez was sworn in, he can certainly become a dictator in office! I, frankly, am appalled at all those on here who love this man. If you love this man you must be a chavestite yourself or went to a ultra-pro-Chavez Venezuelan school. If so, you have a lot of surprises waiting for you! This article isn't even listing the things he said about Bush, like calling him "the devil". If he thinks Bush is the devil, why isn't he following him?? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Dictator ==

I want to agree with the views expressed above. I am by no means a fan of Chavez; he is a manipulative, power-hungry, buffoonish demagogue who may yet drive his country into the ground and is stripping away his citizens' freedom. But he is absolutely ''not'' a dictator. A dictator has total or near-total control of the government; Chavez, whatever he may wish, is still heavily hamstrung by the apparatus of Venezuela's democracy. He has had to refer many of his measures to the voters, and was recently handed a defeat which he could do nothing about. You can call him a dictator-wannabe or repressive, but it ill-serves the credibility of Conservapedia to say he is something he is not. [[User:Tor|Tor]] 16:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)
:Thank You Tor to are completely correct on this one. You know I am beginning to have my doubts about whether this website is being edited in good faith. Chavez is not perfect, and has done a lot of things to harm his country's economy and its people but a dictater? Well that's nonsense and for our encyclopedia to say so because we dislike his economic and social positions, well that's nonsense on stilts.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 08:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Anyone here heard the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra? No? I thought not. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

=="Silencing" the Media==
''"In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence."''
This claim has more problems than the "non-American spelling," which has caused Conservapedia to be critical of Wikipedia in the past. It is outright disingenuous to claim that Chavez "silenced" RCTV because they were "critical of his repression." RCTV's license was simply not renewed; it was not "revoked." And the reason that it was not renewed is because five years prior, RCTV had openly endorsed the overthrow of the democratically elected President Chavez. If a news outlet in the U.S. had openly called for the overthrow of Bush, and Bush was temporarily removed from power, it's likely that the persons responsible would be imprisoned and charged with treason, not have their license not renewed five years after the fact. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 21:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, given that nobody here has expressed any opposition to this, I'm editing the media claim. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 21:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

'''2002 Coup:'''

I am wondering why there is only passing mention of the 2002 coup in this article. If no one minds I would like to edit this article to include it.

'''2002 coup'''

I am alarmed at the only passing mention of the 2002 coup perpetrated by the extreme right. I no one minds I am going to add a section in on it.

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2009-10-14T12:51:25Z

Cidd11:

This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)
==This article is surprisingly neutral==
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
==Dictator!!!!????==
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::...Who was not democratically elected. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'.

It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not surprising. Mr. Homimachong seems to be a fan of Kim Jong il and Hitler and Saddam Husseien, and he can't NOT be a fan of someone like Chavez. If you liked Hitler, you'll like Chavez! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==

you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!

:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)
:And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)
::We 'wouldn't' say that Hitler was Germany's "president," considering that he abolished the office after Paul von Hindenburg's death. Nor was he democratically elected. He was 'appointed' to the chancellorship by Hindenburg, and then assumed presidential powers after Hindenburg's death that he was never intended to have. Hence, as Chavez is a democratically elected head of state, you need greater evidence that he is a "dictator." [[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 01:02, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Irony ==

Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.

Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}

== What a disgrace. ==

How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?

And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.

It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]

:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)

==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Pro-Chavez ==

I don't care how Chavez was sworn in, he can certainly become a dictator in office! I, frankly, am appalled at all those on here who love this man. If you love this man you must be a chavestite yourself or went to a ultra-pro-Chavez Venezuelan school. If so, you have a lot of surprises waiting for you! This article isn't even listing the things he said about Bush, like calling him "the devil". If he thinks Bush is the devil, why isn't he following him?? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

== Dictator ==

I want to agree with the views expressed above. I am by no means a fan of Chavez; he is a manipulative, power-hungry, buffoonish demagogue who may yet drive his country into the ground and is stripping away his citizens' freedom. But he is absolutely ''not'' a dictator. A dictator has total or near-total control of the government; Chavez, whatever he may wish, is still heavily hamstrung by the apparatus of Venezuela's democracy. He has had to refer many of his measures to the voters, and was recently handed a defeat which he could do nothing about. You can call him a dictator-wannabe or repressive, but it ill-serves the credibility of Conservapedia to say he is something he is not. [[User:Tor|Tor]] 16:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)
:Thank You Tor to are completely correct on this one. You know I am beginning to have my doubts about whether this website is being edited in good faith. Chavez is not perfect, and has done a lot of things to harm his country's economy and its people but a dictater? Well that's nonsense and for our encyclopedia to say so because we dislike his economic and social positions, well that's nonsense on stilts.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 08:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Anyone here heard the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra? No? I thought not. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

=="Silencing" the Media==
''"In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence."''
This claim has more problems than the "non-American spelling," which has caused Conservapedia to be critical of Wikipedia in the past. It is outright disingenuous to claim that Chavez "silenced" RCTV because they were "critical of his repression." RCTV's license was simply not renewed; it was not "revoked." And the reason that it was not renewed is because five years prior, RCTV had openly endorsed the overthrow of the democratically elected President Chavez. If a news outlet in the U.S. had openly called for the overthrow of Bush, and Bush was temporarily removed from power, it's likely that the persons responsible would be imprisoned and charged with treason, not have their license not renewed five years after the fact. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 21:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, given that nobody here has expressed any opposition to this, I'm editing the media claim. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 21:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

'''2002 Coup:'''

I am wondering why there is only passing mention of the 2002 coup in this article. If no one minds I would like to edit this article to include it.