Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-08T04:47:38Z

ComplexModulo: /* Hypocrisy */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted. I don't see the need for a long list of people who have done wrong things.

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy - all specious ==

Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this.

::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==

At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==

I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.

Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-08T04:46:38Z

ComplexModulo: /* Hypocrisy */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

To quote Aschlafly (look at the talk page for the Mathematics page) "Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed." Perhaps this principle should be applied to this page. I think everyone understands that Hollywood values are corrupted.

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hypocrisy - all specious ==

Would someone please tell me what is ''hypocritical'' an actor "act[ing] in movies contrary to their public opinions"? Isn't that simply what actors do - '''act'''? This section of the article seems to be based on a very naive confusion of an actor's role-playing with his or her real-life views and actions. In its present form, I don't think it adds anything of value. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

: To a degree, you're right, but when an actor profits enormously by exploiting a sentiment which he simultaneously harshly criticizes (in appeasement of [[liberals]]), it begs the question: dude, if you think it's so wrong, then why do you profit so much from it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not convinced. You seem to be saying that no actor should accept an offer to play roles like Shylock, Iago, or Hannibal Lecter. That would make for some pretty thin plot-lines... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, you overstate it. A better example would be if a [[conservative]] starred in a movie featuring sex and nudity. The howls of protest by [[liberals]] would be deafening!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::But, [[Hollywood values]] embrassed by all [[Liberals]] would mean they were desensortised to this.

::::Actually could you explain this why would "liberals" be out raged, you have spent all this time saying they like that in their movies. People only seem to care about movies featuring sex and nudity when some former child star appears in them and news reporting go along the line "she (it is always she they care about) is sheading her innocent image". This might comes as a shock to you but most of the world doesn't think of actors as liberal/conservative and judge their movies on that basis. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== At a certain point, it would probably pay to be selective ==

At some point I would advise to only use examples that best show the point trying to be made. For instance there are certainly many Hollywood divorces, but we have chosen to only point to a few that give the greatest examples of particular excess. Other areas of the article may wish to do the same. Drew Barrymore's stint in rehab as a young girl would be a good one. Ryan O'Neal thinking that Lee Majors telling him to look out for his wife while he was away on a trip meant to have sex with her would be another. Woody Allen's picture taking, the death of Dorothy Stratten, Morrison's burnout death and his girlfriend being beaten to death by a baseball bat by her next boyfriend, all would be notable examples. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:20, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Crime: Innocent until proven guilty ==

I think that there may be a certain level of contradiction here. Although we ''can'' use arrests as a way to suggest hedonistic activity of Hollywood stars, we're mentioning an accusation without proof they were convicted of the actual crime.

Perhaps we can delete and find other conviction examples. If not we can provide a reminder that we recognize that they are innocent until proven guilty. BTW: I'm not suggesting it's wrong in essence, but it could potentially confuse readers who are trying to understand things.
--[[User:Borneo|Borneo]] 05:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values

2008-06-08T04:42:22Z

ComplexModulo:

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusisatic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Rob Knox]], 18, star of a [[Harry Potter]] film, was stabbed to death during a fight after midnight in or outside a bar<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece</ref><ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/24/international/i140113D92.DTL</ref>
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; cannabis found in bloodstream at post-mortem.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, paedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:<fill in>

==Divorce==

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.
*[[Ben Stein]] divorced his wife.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the adolescent daughetr of his wife [[Mia Farrow]].

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Family Guy

2008-06-08T04:39:57Z

ComplexModulo:

'''Family Guy''' is an animated television program created by Seth MacFarlane. It contains adult themes, and is not appropriate for younger audiences. It details the life of "the Griffins," a fictitious family who live in Quahog, [[Rhode Island]]. It has similarities to [[The Simpsons]] which have been referenced and parodied on both shows.

== Criticism ==

Due to its adult content, the Parents' Television Council has named it one of the worst programs on television.<ref>[http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/main.asp Parents' Television Council]</ref>

The show also has pervasive liberal themes. It also often takes demeaning treatment of [[creationists]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0107lead.asp Answers in Genesis]</ref>

The comedy aspect of Family Guy's writing has been criticized by the writers of South Park. One two-part [[South Park]] episode called Family Guy's jokes "irrelevant to the plot." The episode also showed Family Guy's writers as [[manatee|manatees]] who would put balls containing random ideas into a machine.

==Characters==
=== Family ===
====Peter Griffin====
Peter Griffin is one of the main characters in Family Guy; he is the father of Stewie, Meg, and Chris, and the husband of Lois. He is of partial Irish and African-American decent, and was born in Mexico.

====Lois Griffin====
Lois Griffin is one of the main characters in Family Guy; she is the mother of Stewie, Meg, and Chris, and the wife of Peter. Her father is Carter Pewterschmidt. In the past she worked as a fat camp counselor.

====Meg Griffin====
Meg Griffin is the nerdy daughter of Lois and Peter.

====Chris Griffin====
Chris Griffin is the doofus son of Peter and Lois.

====Stewie Griffin====
Stewie Griffin is one of the main characters in Family Guy. He is the youngest of the Griffin family (still in diapers). He has passing fantasies of committing [[matricide]].

====Brian Griffin====
Brian Griffin is the family dog of the Griffins. Several episodes allude to him being attracted to Lois Griffin; in one, when Peter was presumed lost at sea, he married Lois. Brian is the most intelligent and cultivated member of the Griffin family, and has contributed to the [[New Yorker]].

===Other Characters===
====Carter Pewterschmidt====
Carter Pewterschmidt is the father of Lois Griffin.

====Francis Griffin====
Francis Griffin is the step-father of Peter Griffin.

====Glenn Quagmire====
Glenn Quagmire is one of Peter Griffin's best friends, Glenn Quagmire is obsessed with sex, and secretly, wants to have sex with Peter Griffin's wife, Lois Griffin.

====Adam West====
Adam West is the mayor of Quahog. The character is voiced by [[Batman]] actor [[Adam West]].

====Joe Swanson====
Joe is Peter's paraplegic friend, and is often made fun of for being so.

====Cleveland Brown====
Cleveland is Peter's neighbor, and portrays a typical African American male.

====Herbert====
Herbert is Peter's neighbor, and is known for being a pedophile. For some reason, he has not yet been taken to jail.

====Mort Goldman====
Mort is Peter's pharmacist, and is frequently portrayed as a typical member of the Jewish community, most notably his tendency to whine and complain.

==References==
<References />

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Talk:Conservative parables

2008-06-02T04:16:14Z

ComplexModulo: /* Not a Math Error */

Could there be a section for the moral of the parable? I don't understand it.--[[User:TrTran|TrTran]] 23:09, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Uhhhhh this doesnt really make any sense. How is this a conservative-centric story? Hmmmmmm, did the smoker have breast cancer?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:12, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
:If he'd had a gun then he wouldn't have needed the 10¢. [[User:Lobachevsky|Lobachevsky]] 08:30, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Parable #3==
Andrew, does this relate to Jeanne Assam? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:55, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
:I only ask because, with a linked news ref, it does make a great story, especially Assam's quote "“I give credit to G-d. G-d was with me." [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:57, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, you're sharp! The quote would make a great addition!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:::It is one of those events that stays in the memory! Spine tingling, even for Believers. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Right, it was spine tingling to write that account here! I see much potential for writing and reading [[conservative parables]]. I wonder what will be next!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==#1==
I suppose the conservative insight of this story is never give money to those in need. (Indeed judging from the republicans, this does seem to be the case.) BTW, great reference "This actually happened", I'm tempted to add a fact citation to it.

How are any of these "Conservative" parables? (well the last one...)'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:25, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
:I think the links with the parable I added justify it very well; paleos (for I am one) are very concerned with the small, human, familiar and social dimensions and less with the chiselled-in-stone politics that some politicians and all Liberals insist we adhere to. You're a nice Jewish young man, you can see the small-c conservatism I tried to put across, surely? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::It's the first one that got me worked up, I'm at the end of my 6th day of my most recent quitting, and I know more then any non-smoker how bad it is to fiend for a smoke, I don't see the "human" dimension of the first story, I'm sorry. If it was me I'd probably sit buy him the pack of smokes, take him out for coffee and share the pack with him...
::By "Paleo", do you mean a [[Ron Paul]]-esque conservative?

::: If you gave him a dime, then you'd obviously be hurting him. "Sharing" his hurtful experience wouldn't undo the harm.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::: By the way, [[conservative values]] are superb in helping one conquer addictions (to which all of us are vulnerable). [[Conservatives]] include many ex-smokers who were able to defeat that difficult addiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I guess the point of the story is a "free market" type of lesson. All he had to do was go to another store where tobacco was sold at a lower price. Maybe he'd even find some more change on the street. Thats the only point I can find.

:::: No, he would have gone to the cheapest place first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Storm ==

Doesn't this prove that prayer doesn't work? That the Protestant ship could've been a crew of atheists who also immediately jumped into action, and would've saved themselves, too?

:It proves that [[God]] helps those who help themselves. [[User:HStrobell|HStrobell]] 11:36, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::Your nonsense has been removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal parables==
Is it okay if I make this page? Liberal values, while not generally embraced by those here, might still have something to offer if you have an open mind.--[[User:ThomasE|ThomasE]] 18:16, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

: OK, let's see what have you have in mind. We have an open mind here and welcome the truth. But misleading, made-up stuff, like drug addicts who succeed, won't last, of course.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::Drug addicts never succeed Andy? I can think of [[Paul Erdos|at least one]]. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 23:00, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for illustrating my point, DanielB. An entry that claims that [[Paul Erdos]] was a drug addict will likely result in deletion of the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

::::He did take large quantities of drugs. What else would you call him? Acutally I would call him a user rather than an addict he did give up cold turkey for a month on a bet. He went back on them claiming it clouded his thinking not taking them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

What is good for the goose aint good for the gander, eh Aschlalfy. Besides, liberals have no morals hence any [[Liberal Parable]] would only show that following [[Liberal Values]] cause depression, drug addiction and the like.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:46, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Double Standard?==--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Hardly a double standard. There are stories in the paper or whatever ''all the time'' about drug dealers commiting crimes like armed robbery but how often is a churchgoer likely to do the same? Hence when it happens it would definatly be headline news. That section should be removed pronto.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

:I'll second this - when habitual criminals commit another crime, even a serious one, it's not exactly remarkable, but when a supposedly upstanding member of the church commits a crime, that's newsworthy. That's why anti-homosexual pastor Ted Haggard's outing and more recently, conservative congressman Vito Fosella's DUI arrest and admission of fatherng a love-child are newsworthy - because the behavior is so out of line with their professed values. As a "conservative parable" this one really needs to be reconsidered. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

How is this gem a "parable". What's the moral of the story? Also, who has the double standard? From the way I see it, it's the churchgoer. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 07:23, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

The three comments above illustrate that the double standard is defended and even supported by [[liberal]] editors here. The above comments reinforce the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:I have a serious, respectful question - what is the truth, religious principle, or moral lesson that is being presented through this story? Is it a commentary that all people should be held to the same standard of behavior, regardless of their role in society, and all lapses and misdeeds be regarded equally? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

What Double Standard? News begins with the word '''NEW''', when junkies rob a store for a fix, it's (unfortunately) nothing new. The only one with the double standard was the churchgoer. Please see [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a "short allegorical story designed to '''illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson'''." What is the point of this parable? That the media sensationalizes stories? (Another thing that isn't news...)
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==$40==
Where does one begin! By this parable I presume the guy didnt work at all during the period of his life that this reports? On would think he did and find the $40 that following week! Also, why didnt he use a wallet? This is a silly one, it should be removed (like the double standard
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:14, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, he lost the $40 and it doesn't really matter how he lost it. We've all lost money, of course. I doubt there is any adult who hasn't. The point is obviously that money is nothing more than time, and that time is better spent in self-help than in self-worry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Which I exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:39, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your statement makes no sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Which is exclusive to the realm of the conservative I imagine.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:27, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: A little better, but still incomprehensible. [[Conservative values]] are freely available to all, for the benefit of them, their families, friends and students. Spread the value to others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Not a Math Error==

Income Tax: 10%

Amount wanted after tax: $40

Amount needed to be earned: 10/9 * $40 = $44.44 (.44444444444...)

''Check: 10% of $44.44 = $4.44, $44.44 - $4.44 = $40''

Time needed to earn $44.44 = $44.44 / $8 = 5.6 hours

Not an error [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:13, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:''based on the prevailing wage for teenagers of $8 per hour, that $40 was worth no more than about 6 hours of his time (after taxes).''

You seem to have overlooked the word "about". And given your username's implied claim to have some statistics expertise, I've blocked your account. When you come back, I expect an apology and a retraction.

Then you can construct a better example based on an actual example of gross pay and taxes. (You might, for example, ask the manager of your local McDonald's what percent taxes are withheld for his part-time workers.)

But worst of all, you have argued about the details of the example in a way that draws attention away from the point of it. This does not help the project. It's like the response to [[Expelled]] wherein a write-in campaign complained about the use of an [[Imagine]] sample - not out of any financial concern for a poor suffering widow, but because they wanted to undermine the ability of the producers to articulate their point.

Next time you undermine the project, you are out. Permanently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:01, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

::Seems like a serious overreaction to a dispute over math. StatsMsn wasn't being disrespectful, and the number being 6 or 5.6 doesn't change the ''point'' of the story in any significant way. Can you cut the guy a break and unblock him since he was being constructive? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

::: When someone insists on "correcting" someone else, as in StatsMsn's case, then he should have a good justification. Otherwise, he's just harming the site, and the site is better off by blocking him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see the error in his math, just throwing that out there.

User talk:ComplexModulo

2008-06-02T04:11:40Z

ComplexModulo: /* Maths Teacher */

{{welcome}}

==Maths Teacher==

Hi, just wondering if a middle school maths teacher is the same as a high school maths teacher. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:44, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi, no, they are not the same. I teach grades 6-8, so pre-algebra and algebra. I don't teach geometry, advanced algebra, pre-calculus, calculus, statistics, etc.

How exactly do I make a cool personal user page? Like, I see people's pages that say, "I fondly remember Regan" and they have a picture of Regan next to that line. Or, "I believe that the Earth is old -- 6,000 years old."

:I'm sad, I thought maths teachers were meant to help with problems, not hide them :(. If you can assist me I'll help you beautify your user page :D [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:56, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that that post was a mistake. Please post that back on my site and I will look at it. I will indeed assist you.

:You may still be able to help me. A certain person told me:

:''I blocked you for persisting to defend your error, instead of accepting the correction I made. If you need further assistance with math, try any high school math teacher.'' - Ed Poor (via email)

:The problem is that I don't understand what my mistake was, so perhaps you would be able to explain it. My original edit was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=461219 here] and my change was labeled an error [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_parables&diff=next&oldid=461219 here]. I discussed the error [[Talk:Conservative_parables#Not_a_Math_Error|here]].

:Now I did pretty well in high school maths but I'm still willing to admit when I'm wrong. Could you please look over the situation and provide my with some assistance. Thanks [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:50, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, I don't see why that was flagged as an error. If he lost $40, and makes $8/hour, it will take anywhere between 5 and 6 hours to re-earn that money, depending on the tax rate. Say that about 9% is removed from every paycheck in taxes, then, the person would need to work 5.5 hours, and earn 44 dollars, and lose about $4 to taxes, earning a net of $40. So...I don't see why your post was wrong, but maybe just say a little more than 5 hours or a little less than 6 hours. Or, perhaps that user did not see that you mentioned "after taxes" in your statement, and thinks that the person would only have to work 5 hours at $8/hour to re-earn the $40. I hope this helps.

User talk:ComplexModulo

2008-06-02T04:03:02Z

ComplexModulo: /* Maths Teacher */

User talk:ComplexModulo

2008-06-02T03:54:05Z

ComplexModulo: /* Maths Teacher */

User talk:ComplexModulo

2008-06-02T03:47:26Z

ComplexModulo: /* Maths Teacher */

Talk:Gun control

2008-06-02T03:44:46Z

ComplexModulo: /* Gun Control and Genocide */

Quote: "This right is a natural right which we are endowed by our Creator with, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense."

This assertion requires citation to comply with the Commandments, as, no matter how rational and obvious, it is a personal opinion. Additionally, it would be useful, and would strengthen the assertion, if a clearer explanation of the constitutional right to carry tools really exists, vis-a-vis pre-existing natural rights. If a constitutional scholar is available, it would be great if he could comment here, as the Second Amendment is of the utmost importance and we should support it more clearly.

:I agree, the wording of the Second Amendment is hardly explicit. Also, Jesus reprimanded Peter for trying to defend them with a sword, so whether our Creator wants us to defend ourselves with guns is debatable. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Besides: the "natural" sic for (inalienable?) right stems for the [[Declaration of Independence]] not from the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my version was more clear and accurate, but it's your site.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Second Amendment gives 'The People' - that is The American People (not persons as in individuals) the right to arm itself, specifically against the British who claimed sovereignty over the American People, forbidding them to bear arms except under the King.

Countries with gun control have fewer homicides, as do US states with gun control. And as Daniel B Douglas points out Jesus requires his followers to turn the other cheek: I certainly don't remember God asking us to arm ourselves to the teeth. KT

The Bill of Rights is specifically about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If you think Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a pacifist then you should read about His second coming in the Book of Revelations. In all countries without a similar version of our 2nd Ammendment right have fewer individual freedoms and rights. Gee, if only we were like other countries, sigh.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:You are wrong about states with stricter gun control laws. It's precisely the other way around, as [[John Lott]] shows in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Patriot Act==

Cut:
:Interestingly enough, the USA PATRIOT Act is another law that restricts liberties in the name of safety, yet those in favor of the PATRIOT ACT are often opposed to gun control.

What does "another law that restricts liberties" mean? Is it a "restriction" that any overseas phone call I make to a suspected terrorist will be monitored?

Where is the contradiction between wanted terrorists thwarted, and wanting to defend oneself against muggers and rapists? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== VIRGINIA TECH ==

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any time is a good time to help craft a balanced article presenting arguments for and against gun control laws. I have seen arguments on both sides enough to fill up several books.

:Can you boil it down to 2,000 words or less?

well, cars still kill wayyy more people.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Uhm... So anything that kills less that cars per year should be legal to have and use? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::47,000 fatal car accidents per year in the U.S. versus around 1,000,000 non-fatal uses of guns in self-defense. I'd ban cars on that basis, but there's obviously much more to it. Do we have an article summarizing the findings of [[John Lott]], the statistician who wrote ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Question''': What happens if one of the students who was shot had a gun with which to defend himself? '''Answer''': there would be less people dead then there are now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Counter question''': How many students would be killed every year in shootouts in schools, if we allowed people to carry guns there? I bet even the accidental shootings would kill more people nationwide, not to mention all the things people can do when they are angry, gang related stuff and so on. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Question''': what happens if the murderer hadn't been able to get a gun? '''Answer''': there would be ''many'' less people dead then there are now. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Question''': Who are and who are not prevented from getting guns by gun control laws? '''Answer''': Law abiding citizens are prevented from getting guns and criminals are not. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 22:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'''Reply''' Regardless of what the laws are a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one. Look an how effective (not very) the laws against illegal drugs are. gun control takes the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::More likely he would use some other weapon to kill. Like run over someone with his car.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well they have so-called "motor-voter" laws that enable people who get driver's licenses to register to vote. Perhaps they could draft a "motor-toter" law, to issue every driver a handgun? Carjackings would go WAY down.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

The argument that criminals would still get guns if they wanted them has some foundation in logic, however, it has no foundation statistically. A comparison to England will suffice. It bears out the conclusion that while some criminals still get guns, it is fewer - the mental & physical block of having to break another law just to get a gun actually deters gun crime :-) -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Allso should be concidered where the criminals get their guns, those dont show up from nowhere. Most are stolen from those who have legally purchased them. Less gun owners, less weapons around to be stolen. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::or stolen from a cop. ya, all cops have guns. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Guys, all of this is good stuff, but please consider before posting whether it's better to go to the [[Debate topics]]. Are you planning to help write a balanced article here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

* Read [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/16/where-did-the-shooter-get-his-guns/ this] information via Hot Air. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 03:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We've got a discussion going on here already: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_today%27s_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gun Control Leads to gun confiscation. ==

I am planning to remove this because it has no reference.
-Brian

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.

== Somewhere else in the world ==

I'm wondering if it would be useful to add something about Singapore, which has some of the most extrems laws about gun control. Something like :
:"In Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", ie owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm)"
Any comment? [[User:Emptiness|Emptiness]] 05:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I, the inferior European who cannot possibly understand anything you superior Americans discuss here, have something to add in too. And yes, that was sarcasm. So here, I´ll offer you a little piece of gun control info from the rest of the world: Here in Finland, we have certain, quite strict gun control laws: it is quite close to impossible for a private person to own a *handgun* without a very good reason, such as being the owner of a shooting range, sports, or being a police officer. Also, anything beyond semi-auto is a BIG no-no for civilians here. Shotguns and Rifles ARE available far easier, since hunting is a very popular pastime here in Finland, especially the northern parts where I live in.
Interesting enough, most homicides and crimes in general do NOT involve guns, they involve alcohol and drugs. Far more common as a murder weapon is a kitchen knife than a firearm of some kind, and a very large proportion of ALL crimes in finland involve alcohol in a way or another. Just my two cents, y´know?

..And Come on, we have friggin RUSSIA as our neighbour. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Duplicate sentence revert. ==

Okay, I guess I might just have a bee in my bonnet over this, but the sentence, ''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.'' appears twice -- in a row. Once as the end of the first paragraph, and then as the first sentence of the second paragraph. I attempted to correct this obvious mistake, but I was '''reverted'''. Would someone please tell me how I was wrong to do this, and why it is necessary to repeat this sentence immediately after itself and why it should '''not''' be removed from the tail of the first paragraph?

As it appears in the article:

''Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime.''

''Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime. Libertarians and conservatives, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms.''

Have at me.

''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 22:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT) '''
----
: I see the revert was removed, and the correction made. Thank you. I am avenged.
:
:''' [[User:TheReverendLee|The Rev.]] 10:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT) '''

Uhh, is it really proper for the article to claim that "Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and liberals as a remedy to crime, but that is actually a [[deceit]]" right in the first paragraph? I mean, that's a big assertion and there's no citation to back it up. I think such a statement would be better suited to the second or third paragraphs, maybe... [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 23:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Moved discussion from Talk:Main Page ==

I've moved the discussion down here for clarity.

If you give a random stranger a gun, there is a 100-to-1 chance that the gun will be used defensively, to prevent crime, rather than to perpetrate a crime. It inexorably follows from that simple observation that more guns leads to less crime.

If a random passenger or pilot had a gun on [[9/11]], thousands of lives would have been saved. If a teacher or random student had a gun in a [[public school]], they would not be easy prey for people like the [[Virginia Tech killer]]. Indeed, most shocking crimes would never occur if there was widespread gun ownership.

As I've said, every credible study confirms that more guns leads to less crime. The next time you read about a serial murder, a rape, a beating, a robbery, etc., just think to yourself: more gun ownership would have reduced the likelihood of that occurring.

I'm going to add this issue to the [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:I'm still waiting for you to reference those studies. Meanwhile, I found [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html this page] which argues (with facts and figures) that Australia's tough new gun laws resulted in very little change in crime and gun deaths. In other words, it didn't help the situation, but didn't make it worse either. Unfortunately, it's data dates to only a few years after the tough gun laws were introduced, and longer-term data would be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:: I'll build up the [[John Lott]] entry with more citations. I've already added several. With odds of 100-to-1 that putting a gun in the hands of a stranger will be used for defensive, deterrent and crime-preventing purposes, it's statistically implausible that such gun distribution would increase crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)

:::I've already said this above but it's probably worth repeating.

:::I think it is unwise to compare gun control and homicide rates between different countries and then use that as an argument to increase or reduce gun control in a particular country.

:::The situation in the UK and Australia (similar gun control laws) is very different to the situation in the US. Neither of the former two has an equivalent to the Second Amendment nor do they have a history of common and easy gun ownership. Unlike the US.

:::While gun crime and homicide rates are much higher in the US compared to either country and almost all Western nations, that doesn't mean that introducing more gun control will reduce gun crime and homicide.

:::Conversely, using the (perhaps counter-intuitive to non-Americans) US experience of "more gun-control = more gun crime and homicide" to argue for less gun control elsewhere doesn't follow.

:::The stark reality is that gun crime and homicide are generally higher in countries with relatively relaxed gun-control (such as in the US) and generally lower in countries with relatively strict gun-control.

:::However, changing from more gun-control to less or vica-versa doesn't necessarily produce the result that is expected - in either direction. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
::::Why are you so obsessed with guns? Knives and swords work just as well, and if carried on a plane would have avoided the risk of a loss of cabin pressure that is an issue with higher-calibre handguns. And what about Tasers and Mace? ...[[User:RingWraith|RingWraith]] 18:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, Aschlafly, you just changed the [[John Lott]] page from a serious and critical (if short) look at gun control, giving arguments for and against (although more strongly for gun control). Now, as a result of this argument, it is a totally pro-guns piece....conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:25, 16 December 2007

:There were scurrilous and non-encyclopedic remarks in the [[John Lott]] that were properly removed. I've added additional information also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

In reply to Philip above, I want to point out that [[gun control]] represents a [[materialistic]] style of reasoning that we reject in other contexts. [[Gun control]] depends on overemphasizing the significance of what is seen (guns) as the cause of crime, while ignoring the significance of what is unseen (deterrence) in reducing crime. Generally, though not always, advocates of [[gun control]] also advocate [[materialism]] in other contexts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
:: Sorry, I can't see the connection between gun control and [[materialism]]. I accept that the idea that widespread carrying of guns would deter crime makes sense, but as always, and as Ajkgordon said, this is simplistic as there are always multiple other factors at work. I haven't seen comparative figures for crime in different countries, although I have seen those for gun deaths which show America being over four times the rate of Australia. However, the Australian figures show that most gun deaths are suicides, and these might well happen by different means if there were far fewer guns around, so those figures may not mean much. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:I don't think I've ever heard any serious analyst saying that guns are the cause of crime. Rather I often hear that wide availability of guns can enable a high level of gun crime catalysed by other factors such as drug use, poverty, disenfranchisement, gang violence, etc. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: I think many [[gun control]] supporters do think that the guns themselves are the cause of much crime, and that the crimes would not occur in the absence of guns. This is a heavily [[materialistic]] style of reasoning, but there are many [[materialists]] out there who are attracted to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, it's simplistic reasoning. Gun-control > fewer guns > less gun crime.
::My view is that gun control has a negative ( i.e. lessening) effect on gun crime and violent crime if gun control is the current status quo. Changing from loose gun-control to tight gun-control, however, can often have a positive effect, particularly experienced in some states in the US.
::But likewise, your reasoning of Gun-freedom → better defence → less gun crime is also over simplistic.
::There are too many other variables at work to make that predictive correlation. And certainly it would be unwise to argue that more guns in places like the UK and Australia would lead to lower gun crime when their gun crime rates are so much lower than those of the US already. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
::: Andy's point is that the widespread availability of guns deters ''general'' crime, not specifically ''gun crime''. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but I can see the rationale. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, if a random passenger had a gun on 9/11 that would imply anyone legally entitled to carry a firearm could take them onto airplanes. Legal entitelment would assumedly be granted anyone without a criminal record who has been vetted for gun ownership. Terrorists are often people who meet exactly that description. More terrorist with guns on airplanes, passengers with guns on airplanes, shoot outs on airplanes. Apart from the fact that shooting off guns in high altitude aircraft is not a good idea, I have a suspicion that many people would shudder at the thought and come to the conclusion flying would be a more dangerous activity as a result. A more liberal, gun control approach was the introduction of armed Air Marshals on flights, unfortunalely not so much conservative fire-power available in case of an emergency. [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: A gun fight on one of the September 11 planes would bring the plane down, but that would have prevented the far worse consequence of it crashing into the World Trade Center.
: But although Andy's got a point about us not seeing what crimes are prevented by guns being widely available, an argument that he's not addressed (as I recall) is that widespread availability of guns means that people who are otherwise law-abiding then use them in a moment of passion or rage, often killing a spouse or other relative or friend, whereas if they didn't have ready access to a gun, the consequences would have been much less severe.
: What this means, however, is that we then have to weigh up this apparent benefit of not having guns with the apparent benefit that having guns has in deterring crime generally. It's a difficult issue, made more difficult by the fact that if one goes from widespread gun ownership to very restricted gun ownership, although the end result may be better, in the interim it is the law-abiding people who give up their guns first.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

:: Philip points out a common fear, that guns cause crimes of "passion or rage" that would not occur in the absence of the guns, but please realize that knives, sticks, baseball bats, and fists are still available. Also, the absence of guns means a lack of defense or deterrence against crimes of "passion or rage." So I doubt there is an overall positive effect of [[gun control]] on this particular type of crime, which is a probably a small percentage of overall crimes anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
::: A couple of corrections and an agreement:
:::* I didn't say that guns ''cause'' crimes of passion or rage. Nor did I say that in their absence the crime would not occur. I was saying that in cases of passion or rage, a gun is going to have a worse consequence than if the gun is not available. Sure, a knife or etc. could still be used, but the victim likely would have a better chance of surviving an attack with another weapon than against a gun.
:::* I agree that this particular type of crime would only be a small percentage of overall crimes.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

<--- Let's take a step back. For those of you who are anti-gun control, why are US rates of violent crime so much higher than almost all other wealthy western countries, most of which have tight gun control? Obviously you don't believe that it's due to the wide availability of guns but there does seem to be a direct correlation. What, in your view, are the reasons? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment, it has an enormous drug problem, it has anti-religious [[public school]] system, it has widespread gambling and pornography, and it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:11, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Hmmmm... interesting, thanks.
:::::But it is also one of the most religious western countries, so why does it have these problems in the first place? And are you arguing for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners or fewer prisoners? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: The [[U.S.]] has a strong religious component, but also a strong anti-religious component. Since crime is perpetrated by only 1% of the population, the [[U.S.]] is probably worse off than other countries when viewed with respect to religion and crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Well, I, for one, am arguing for a renewal of the culture, to address the problems that Mr. Schlafly just mentioned. Especially the matter of violent sport (and the excuses that team owners and many colleges make for misbehaving athletes), gambling, pornography, and anti-[[homeschooling]] regulations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::Thanks, very interesting.
:::::::I wonder what percentage of the prison population is religious compared to atheist. I read recently that 2% of Americans are in prison or on probation/parole at any one time. Let's be generous and say that 10% of Americans are atheists. Does that mean that one in five American atheists are convicted felons? Or is it a more balanced proportion reflecting the religious/atheist split in society as a whole?
:::::::Even so, with atheists making up a much bigger proportion of the population in countries such as France and Italy, their prison populations are proportionately much lower. I guess I'm simply struggling with a link between atheists and crime but I may be missing something.
:::::::As for violence in sport, football (soccer), rugby, Australian rules... all these are pretty violent in other countries. Gambling is not unique to the US nor is pornography, while homeschooling is so insignificant in most other western countries as to be irrelevant.
:::::::What I'm looking for is what makes the US have such a high level of violent crime - a unique differentiator in its culture or wealth or society or education or immigration that doesn't have anything to do with guns. I'm struggling a bit. Are there any well-regarded studies on the phenomenon? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:13, 17 December 2007 (EST)
:::::::
:::: An interesting debate. Aschlafly writes -

::::The [[U.S.]] is unique in many ways. The [[U.S.]] has a culture of violence in sports, movies and entertainment.

::::Absolutely true, but don't forget that the second largest export of the US is entertainment, so the rest of the entire planet is also watching the same violent US-produced material on TV and in the movies. As for sports, apart from the punch-up joke that ice hockey became, I'm not sure how the US sports are any more violent than, say, soccer, or bull-fighting even. I can't see what's unique here, basically.

::::it has an enormous drug problem

::::Again, very true, but again, not unique to the US, and I'm sure plenty of studies would suggest the problem is much, much worse elsewhere.

::::it has anti-religious [[public school]] system

::::Perhaps so, but most other Western countries have far more students in far more secular schools. Again, I'm not sure there's anything unique here.

::::it has widespread gambling and pornography

::::The US obsession with pornography is odd, but it's hardly worse of a problem than many other societies, and certainly not uniquely so. However, I would have to disagree with you on the gambling front -in many, many other nations betting shops are as common as the local newsagent, and many perfectly normal people are completely accustomed to routinely place wagers on all sorts of activities, all legally and fully above board. (Though I'm certainly not suggesting this doesn't create problems). The US seems to have worsened its gambing problem in much the same way it worsened its alcohol problem during Prohibition by banning access to the activity to most, and creating these bizarre enclaves (native reservations, bizarre cities) where it's suddenly OK to go wild on wagering.

::::it imprisons more people per capita than any other nation. When those inmates get out, they don't easily find jobs, and unfortunately it's back to crime for many of them.

::::Here I'm with you 100%. The US has a staggering incarceration rate, and there's no denying that prisons are unhealthy environments. This is certainly a unique feature of the US. But I'm interested in those studies you quote, and I'm interested in debating exactly what IS unique about the US that causes the gun crime rate to be so high. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 17:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::: That's basically the point I made earlier: I don't see that the U.S. is all that much different to other English-speaking western countries, such as Australia, except that it has a higher proportion of Christians (which ''should'' mean that is has ''less'' crime) and it has a much more liberal (sorry!) attitude towards guns. Superficially, this would indicate that the higher rate of violent crime is due to the widespread availability of guns. As for movies, I'll endorse Reasonableperson's comment. Much of what airs on Australian television is produced in America. And much of the Australian content has a lower moral standard than the American stuff! Put it this way Andy, if you think the American movie and TV productions are bad (and much of it is bad), perhaps it indicates that you don't know enough about what's produced elsewhere! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree. Of the points raised so far, only the extraordinary prison population is unique to the US - but there's an obvious logical flaw in blaming the level of crime on the number of prisoners. I'd like to throw this one out there though - does the US have a bigger gap between rich and poor than is common in other developed countries, and is this part of the explanation? Certainly, here in Australia we have a subset of the population which is significantly poorer than the rest of us. And that subset (the aboriginal population) has higher rates of violent crime, and also has a very high prison rate. So perhaps in the US the poverty gap is the cause of the crime, the guns are the cause of the severity of the crime, and the prison population is a result of it? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 05:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While this is all very interesting, I would like to know where the "100-1 chance" fact came from. From where I am sitting, it seems to me that more guns are not the answer. You do not put a fire out by adding more fuel to it, especially because more guns will find their way in to inner city streets and gang violence. Put it this way: between 1994 and 1999 there were 253 school related deaths, 60% of which involved hand guns. And in a single year, more children die from gun shots than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. Scare you yet? Oh, and if you are under 15, you are 12 times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun than in the top 25 industrial countries. combined. So do we need more guns? How about we prevent psychos like the VT shooter from getting a gun[http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm gun safety facts]. How about we prevent another Columbine? Nothing is being done and it is sad. Do you need armor piercing, fully automatic weapons? No. More guns does not lead to less crime, we cannot all be the judge and jury, lets put more money in to policing our streets (by not making it basically suicide to be a policeman in the inner city). What credible studies are you referring to? It seems like in America today, violence is more and more becoming the answer, and it shouldn't be. I do not want to have an argument be settled by a gun shot. It ruins lives.

So what to do. Here is my proposition: Stop selling hand guns. And here is why. First off, they serve no purpose other than to kill another human being. Self-defense, gang violence, home violence, curious children, they serve no purpose. The only reason that they are used in self-defense is because it is too easy for people with ill intent to get them in the first place. Second, it does not impede your hunting or right to bear arms. Listen, a 9mm cannot kill a dear if you are hunting it right. A 9mm can kill a police man, or a cashier, or fellow students if in the wrong hands. Seems like the simplest and most effective answer is to abolish them entirely. Thanks for your time.

{{unsigned|Afee}}
:Whilst I agree with much of that, the main problem I see is that if you stop selling guns, you will effectively be stopping honest people from getting them, whilst the criminals will still get them. That could make the situation worse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::Certainly that seems to be the problem faced by US states that have introduced strict gun control where before there was little gun control. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:35, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly, I'm just curious, if you are so dedicated to the preservation of human life, why are you so opposed to gun control. There is no secret agenda behind it, the sole purpose of gun control is to limit access to guns and as a result reduce gun violence. [ed. note: deleted inappropriate comment that follows] --[[User:LoveJesus1|LoveJesus1]] 19:50, 21 December 2007 (EST)

: "LoveJesus1", gun control results in a loss of human life. I know [[materialists]] have trouble "seeing" that, but guns deter crime and save lives. Next time you see a police officer look at what he carries. The more citizens who can carry the same thing, the less the crime.

: Don't think we're fooled by [[liberal]]s pretending that "the sole purpose of gun control is to ... reduce gun violence." [[Liberals]] care more about increasing dependency on government, as in [[Cuba]], which has the strictest [[gun control]] in the world. Less guns means more government dependency, and [[liberals]] know that but rarely admit to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Aschlafly, comparing gun control in other countries is not a good idea if you want to argue the case for no gun control. And using Cuba as a comparison is, as you know, completely irrelevant - Cuba has a completely different form of government and ideas of freedom. If you insist on comparisons with other countries, then it should be with other wealthy liberal democracies such as the UK or Australia. However, it makes your anti-gun control argument very difficult to support because both of those countries have lower rates of gun and violent crime. In the UK, the police aren't even armed!
::There are too many other factors involved to draw conclusions by comparing other countries' experiences with the legal status of arms. The only valid comparisons, in my humble opinion, are those between US states. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Change of graph and wording ==

[[image:Robbery victims.png|right|350px]]The graph that I supplied (right) was drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1993 to 2005. The [[:Image:Australia crime.gif|graph that Andy substituted]] is, in my opinion, inferior, with three problems:
* It covers the years 1991 to 2000, a smaller range, and particularly only covers a few years after the introduction of gun control.
* The source of the data on which the graph is based is not specified, although I'm not suggesting that it is questionable; it's probably official data from somewhere.
* The graph is being used in the article to make a point that is contradicted by the report the graph came from. The report says of this graph:{{QuoteBox|It's apparent from the graph that the rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before. Also, the burglary rate was dropping a little from '93 to '96, but then started an obvious rise. The rises would look like a bad effect of the ban/buyback, except that they stopped after '98. The small downturns for all three in '99 and 2000 could be the ban/buyback stopping some upward trend that had begun, but it is just as likely that the trend reversal was caused by elimination or whatever was causing the trend to begin with. Both robbery and armed robbery appear to have stabilized (two years) at rates higher than they were before the Port Arthur incident and the ban/buyback.}} In other words, the report says that the graph is inconclusive, but the article claims that the graph shown an "unmistakable increase in robbery and armed robbery".
Also, the article says "there is no evidence supporting the promised decrease in crime from gun control", yet the graph that I supplied and which was removed ''does'' support that (even if it doesn't ''prove'' it, given that other factors may be at work). Furthermore, other ABS figures that I spotted, such as murder rates, seemed to show the same drop. I picked "robbery" because it was the largest category of violent crime, and would have swamped other figures such as murder figures.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the article now says that John Lott "demonstrates" (I had "claimed") that gun control in the countries mentioned have resulted in an increase in crime. It is true that he does quote some percentage-rise figures, but there's almost no actual hard data in the reference to really be able to say that he "demonstrates" it. It's more of a claim with the bare minimum of supporting evidence. I haven't had a close look yet, but his claimed percentage rises don't seem to match the ABS figures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[[image:robbery victims per 100K.png|right|350px]]
:I've done more searching, and have found figures that appear to match those of the graph from gunsandcrime.org. They only supply a small graph, so one can't compare actual figures, but my new graph (right) appears to match theirs. The differences from the other graph I did (above) are that their graph is crimes per 100,000 people, and their "armed robbery" figures include weapons other than guns. My new graph is the same as theirs in that it is per 100,000 people and includes weapons other than guns. The other significant difference, of course, is that my graph goes to 2005, whereas theirs only went to 2000. I couldn't find the burglary figures that they include on their graph, so I left them off. And because of that, the vertical scale is expanded compared to theirs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== ...protected? ==

Aw, man. This has been protected since ''June''? I had just thought of a possible addition, but then I realized that I can't edit. :( Is this normal? I thought protection was just used for a short time to protect against vandalism. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 10:45, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for pointing it out and, no, that is not normal for such protection to continue for so long. I unprotected the page per your request. Please be factual and insightful in improving it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Thank you kindly! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 11:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)
::: And thanks for the work on tidying up the footnotes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

It is stated here that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=8440&diff=357540&oldid=357525 "the facts are provided"] to justify a claim that "Gun control has led to genocide." I disagree. Example: "In 1911, Turkey imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed." What does the gun control have to do with the genocide? It is not disputed that these three states enacted laws suppressing the free ownership of firearms. What I dispute is the link between ownership restrictions and genocide. Is the author suggesting that gun control led to the easy murder of unarmed civilians (for example, Jews would have been able to defend themselves against Nazi murders if they were able to posess personal firearms)? If this is the case, I feel it should be cleared up. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

: Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims. That is self-evident. If you have an example of genocide occurring without the state first disarming the victims through use of [[gun control]], then I'd sure like to see it. Most people will use their weapons, if they have them, to defend their families.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::The millions of victims in the cases above were spread all over the place in small populations. Would such populations, even if they did all manage to gather together in one huge group, armed with small arms and rifles have been able to defend themselves against armies armed with airplanes, armor and artillery? Have you been inbibing too much Christmas spirit? By the way I think your contribution is great. The bloggers will love it. Merry Christmas! [[User:CillaHunt|CillaHunt]] 13:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::CillaHunt, the last bit of your comment is not productive. I brought forth a legitimate concern of mine, which was in no way derisive of the author of the particular section of the article. I agree with the first part of your comment (the victims were unorganized, etc, and would have a hard time defending against armies), but insulting someone is not constructive to this discussion's goals of improving and clarifying the article. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 13:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Well said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:31, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::: ThomasB, I appreciate your rebuttal of CillaHunt's silly and insensitive remarks. Genocide has occurred multiple times and each time it was preceded by [[gun control]]. It doesn't take a genius to understand why. Airplanes, armor and artillery, by the way, are not the tools of genocide. Rather, genocide is perpetrated by neighbors with state-provided guns taking away victims who lack guns to defend their families. Can that happen without [[gun control]]? It never has, and I think the answer is "no". But I'm open-minded to listen to coherent arguments, if any, that [[gun control]] is irrelevant to the ability to carry out [[genocide]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:57, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Thanks for your explanation. I had interpreted the article as saying that gun control was the reason for the genocides, not that it was the reason it wasn't able to be prevented. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:02, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::: That's a hair-splitting distinction you're trying to draw. I'm not sure there is any distinction in practice between (a) being a reason for something occurring and (b) being a reason that the same thing was not prevented. Without the gun control, it would have been difficult or impossible for the genocides to occur. It seems to me you may seek to cling to gun control without admitting that it facilitated genocide. With all due respect, I'd suggest letting go of the gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::My confusion was really just a matter of semantics. I interpreted "gun control has led to genocide" to mean that the firearms regulations caused people to seek to eliminate an entire ethnicity. Thanks, [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, why do you continue to deny the genocide that occurred in Bosnia? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:49, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I would, however, like to make another point with regard to this. For gun control to have enabled genocide in the instances cited, the populations in question would have had to be otherwise armed. Is there any evidence that these populations were, and were able to fight back effectively? The Jews, even when they were organized and armed (as in Warsaw), actually allowed most of their population to be deported before they fought back. A preemptive clarification here, I am in no way attempting to defend gun bans or any more extreme measures of gun control as I fully support individual gun ownership rights. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 10:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: [[Gun control]] creates the vulnerability that enables [[genocide]] to occur. There has never been [[genocide]] without [[gun control]] first rendering the victims defenseless. Without [[gun control]], there is a powerful deterrent to [[genocide]], so powerful that it has not historically occurred in those circumstances. See the Washington University law journal article cited in the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

So you're saying that if gun control laws were not imposed, Stalin would not have killed upwards of 20 million people?

== the footnotes are presently messed up for this article ==

the footnotes are presently messed up for this article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:05, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:fixed. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== Australian election results ==

I removed this from the article:
{{Quotebox|In [[Australia]], the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the socialistic Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history. (The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making])}}
Gun control was brought in in 1996 at the instigation of the federal Liberal Party (conservative) government, who had to get the co-operation of the state governments (it is a state responsibility). Two states objected and had to have their arms twisted, so to speak. Both these were Labor states (Tasmanian and Queensland). The next two elections at state level or above (Western Australia at the end of 1996 and South Australia in 1997) saw Labor governments replaced by Liberal governments. At the federal level, the Liberal Party retained office for the next three elections (1998, 2001, and 2004).

By 2002, all states except South Australia were held by the Labor Party. South Australia went to the Labor Party in February 2002.

So claiming that gun control led to a Labor monopoly seems to be drawing a ''very'' long bow. Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: Philip, your analysis ''confirms'' rather than disputes the truth of the statement above. The point is that [[gun control]] causes a shift in voter attitudes towards more dependency on government, and this is precisely what has been observed in [[Australia]]. You say that "Especially given that gun control was not an issue in the 2007 federal election that finally resulted in wall-to-wall Labor." But no one claims that the "issue" of gun control itself is what sways the elections towards leftists. It's the increased dependency on government that ''results'' from implementing gun control that causes the voter shift to the left. Leftists understand this and push [[gun control]] for that reason. Why wouldn't [[conservatives]] recognize this effect also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy, could you clarify what you mean by "dependency"? Dependency in what areas? Social services (which I'd suggest has no connection)? Health services (ditto)? Or security/self defence? In the latter case, the population was always dependent on the police anyway, as very few carried guns as a matter of course. It still seems to be drawing a very long bow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::: I mean emotional dependence. [[Gun control]] directly requires voters to depend more on government for protection, and that causes support for bigger government. It's an emotional dependence and plainly affects how people vote. And that, of course, is why leftists push [[gun control]] so much. The cause-and-effect in the political results in [[Australia]] and elsewhere is unmistakable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::: The problem I have with that is one that I've already alluded to: Before gun control in Australia, they always did rely on the government (i.e. the police) for protection. They didn't rely on guns, because most people did not carry guns. I would say from my own observations that there has been ''no'' increase in reliance on government for protection because of gun control. Furthermore, for all practical purposes the police forces are state-run, but gun control was instigated by the ''federal'' government, so your argument is effectively saying that the federal government introduced gun control to increase reliance on state governments, which is absurd to anyone knowing much about Australian politics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::::Philip, do you have any stats showing the level of gun ownership before and after 1996? My guess is that it reduced from a small fraction of the population to a small fraction of a small fraction of the population. What's more, pre-96 I would imagine the vast majority of gun-ownership was in rural areas, but the swing against Howard in 2007 was significant in the cities also. So to argue that the change has been so significant to lead to some sort of dependence on government is bizarre. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: No, I don't have those statistics. This is not a subject that I've ever taken an interest in (and I'm only doing so now because some of the claims are so at odds with my observations here in Oz), so I don't have any statistics "lying around", so to speak. All the statistics I have produced are ones that I've gone looking for. The best (most authoritative) source would be the Australian Bureau of Statistics web-site, so I suggest that you go there and search for gun ownership statistics. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy,

:You are simply lying if you think that Leftists push gun control to create a dependency on government. More guns equals more crime. I think you should take a walk through Dublin some night, by yourself and see how you get on. We don't have massive gang shootouts here like in the States. And thank God for that. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 19:22, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:: Andy argues that more guns equals ''less'' crime, so if he believes that, he is not lying. Uncivil comments like that do not help your argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:48, 25 December 2007 (EST)

"In Britain, for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997[15] resulted in the Labour Party winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the Labour Party has remained in power in Britain for over a decade."
I think the above is very misleading - Labour came in to power for a great many reasons, but I think the restrictions of handguns is extremely unrelated. Having grown up with guns as a hunter, many people dislike Labour's anti-gun stance, but the real reason they won was due to an immoral opposition (sexual scandals etc) and the promise of a younger more media-savvy government. --[[User:Mattsday|Mattsday]] 20:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: You're arguing against logic and observation. Every gun owner who gives up his gun, or can't obtain a gun, is more likely to vote for the pro-government party. It doesn't take very many of "more likely" shifts to change an election outcome. If the British gun control affected more than 5% of voters -- and it surely did -- then the outcome changes from conservative rule to [[Labour Party]] rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::While I agree with your position on gun control, here is my reasoning in this particular case:
::If (in the US) the Democrats came along and made a law that ended with me losing my gun or not being able to get one, I'd surely give my votes to the Republicans ASAP, who would likely (hopefully) try to undo the damage done by said law.
::After all, it's not like the Democrats' plan would go much beyond "Guns are bad. Let's control access to them", right? The police was there to protect me before, and I honestly doubt that gun control would suddenly lead to the introduction of Super Troopers patrolling the streets. So voting Democrats after they screwed up would only give them permission to screw up more. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 23:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::: I assume that Andy meant "...is more likely to vote for the pro-''gun'' party".
::: Few elections are fought on a single issue. So although gun enthusiasts might like to vote ''against'' the government that took their guns away, they might well vote ''for'' that party if it supported other things that they considered more important than gun ownership. So Mattsday is not arguing against logic, and if (as I suspect, but I don't know) Mattsday is from Britain, then ''he'' would have been the one doing the observing rather than Andy (assuming Andy was not in Britain at the time). Yes, there's a couple of assumptions in that last sentence (that Mattsday was in Britain at the time and Andy wasn't), so if I'm wrong on those assumptions, please correct me.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:46, 30 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Mattsday's observations are substantially correct. Less than 1% of the population owned handguns prior to the 1997 handgun ban (shotguns are widely owned in rural areas but are subject to more relaxed regulation) so the number of people directly affected by the ban was small. It's the first time I've heard it suggested that it was a major factor in the collapse in the Conservative vote -- that started with Black Wednesday and was cemented by the antics of an increasingly scandal-ridden and fractious party over the following years.[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all_files/image002.gif] It is a mistake to assume that domestic political controversies in the USA will have any salience in other political cultures. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 10:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Ashlafly, I think you over-estimate the importance of guns in British society. It is extremely rare for Britons to ever see a gun, let alone handle one or use one. It just isn't in our general culture like it might be in the US. Even the police aren't regularly armed - indeed it's quite a shock for me to fly back into Heathrow airport and see armed police! The gun control imposed upon the British population was perhaps ill-advised and a knee-jerk reaction to a murderous rampage by an armed loon. But it will have had next to zero effect on the outcome of the following general election which was lost by the Conservatives due to numerous other more substantive reasons. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== General Comment ==

Folks, there have been several edits to the content page that have taken out or obscured factual information. Other edits have misled readers by attributing an enactment of gun control legislation to a particular party in control of government at that the time, without recognizing the media pressure created for the gun control based on a statistically insignificant, but much-publicized, act of violence. I'm going to revert inappropriate edits that obscure the essential facts. Guns, the most effective weapon of self-defense which are used overwhelmingly in self-defense, deserve factual treatment here on Conservapedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== How long do we wait for the effects? ==

Andy's edit comment associated with the removal of some text was, "''removed confusing reference to the opinion of one pro-gun group, and removed emphasis on 2004 crime data relative to 1996 gun control''"

I would like to know the following:
* What was confusing about it?
* Why is 2004 crime data apparently not relevant to 1996 gun control, yet 2007 election results are?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

: As to the first half, I find it meaningless to say, "such-and-such group feels such-and-such." Suppose a said that a Christian group favored same-sex marriage? It would mean nothing, particularly without a statement of what most Christian groups felt, or what the most credible Christian sources say.

: As to the second half, demographics with respect to crime change over the course of 8 years everywhere. Crime fell worldwide during the period 1996 to 2004, I think, do to declining percentages of teenagers likely to commit crime. But the demographics of voters do not change as rapidly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Inappropriate "fact" tags ==

On [[Wikipedia]], "fact" tags are used to make ideological statements. That is not appropriate, obviously. Two "fact" tags were just inserted here:
* a "fact" tag on the observation that there is "no evidence," but it's impossible to cite a fact for something that is not there
* a "fact" tag on the observation that [[Australia]] moved significantly to the left politically after adopting [[gun control]], which is supported by several cites and, frankly, indisputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 25 December 2007 (EST)
: "Fact" tags can be used to make ideological statements. They can also be used to ask for a reference for something that is agreed. They can also be used to ask for a reference because the claim is either disputed or questioned.
:* The first fact tag was not that there is "no evidence" but that a decrease in crime (generally, as opposed to gun crime) was "promised". I don't remember this being promised at all.
:* The second fact tag was not disputing that the electorate moved to the left, but that this was "due to" gun control. I don't believe that it was due to that, despite all the comments above about how this ''could'' happen.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: It seems self-evident to me that lawmakers promised a safer country from the gun ban, but I've added a cite to that effect to address your concern. Honestly, I can't imagine supporters of the gun ban saying anything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:02, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: A "safer country", yes, but specifically through fewer gun deaths, not reduced crime generally. And the reference merely claims what you said above, that lawmakers promised a "safer" country. It does say in what way they claimed it would be safer, so does not claim that lawmakers said that crime generally would be reduced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:: On the second point, you put "due to" in quotes but I don't think I used that phrase. Are you quoting me? I thought I said "led to", which is undeniably true. It's a fact and you're free to suggest other causes, but your other causes should explain why Britain also moved left after its gun control, while America did not move left after it ''rejected'' demands for gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::: I thought that I was quoting you, but you are correct: you said "led to", not "due to". But it doesn't make any real difference—in both cases it is indicating causality, which is what I was questioning, and I reject that it's "undeniably true". There's always multiple factors at work in elections and why people vote the way that they do, so it's never a given that a particular issue is the cause, or even a factor, in the outcome of an election.
::: I don't believe that the onus is on me to explain what could be a coincidence (Australia, Britain, and the U.S.), given the small sample size. Rather, I think the onus is on you to explain, if you believe that the same factor is a work in all three cases, why Britain moved to the left straight after the introduction of gun control, whereas Australia moved to the right straight after (see my earlier post above) and only moved left later on, after eleven years in the case of the federal government.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::::Hear hear!!! It's that lazy correlation = causation argument that keeps cropping up. It's worth noting that at present, although the Labour Party is still in power in the UK, the mood seems to have swung significantly back to the right - at exactly the same time as it swung to the left in Australia!! And of course if you wait long enough, ANY country will swing to the left at some point. So using the flawed logic seen above, you can take any change you like and argue that it ultimately led to a swing to the left. In the case of the change in gun control laws in Australia in 1996, the change happened right at the start of one of the longest periods of continuous right-wing federal government in the nation's history with the swing to the left taking 11 years to arrive. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 23:58, 26 December 2007 (EST)

== WorldNetDaily reference ==

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 This article] from WorldNetDaily (WND) is being used as a reference for a couple of points, but I believe that the article is unreliable, possibly from relying on claims and figures from the (Australian) Sporting Shooters Association rather than official figures.

A problem with the claims are that there are no specifics, such as what years they are comparing. Presumably, however, they would be comparing, say, 1999 (as the article was written in 2000) with 1995 or 1996 (1996 being when gun control was introduced). Here are some official figures that I've found, and I've highlighted 1995 and 1999:
{| class="wikitable"
| || '''1995'''||1996||1997||1998||'''1999'''||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Australia || '''326'''||314||321||287||'''344'''||316||310||318||302||263||270
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Gun homicides in Australia ||'''58'''||99||75||54||'''62'''||59||50||42||37||32||26
|- align="right"
| align="left"| Homicides in Victoria ||'''62'''||52||63||47||'''62'''||55||65||67||69||47||72
|-
| Gun homicides in Victoria || colspan="11"| <center>Not available (not found)</center>
|}

In particular, I question the following two claims:
* "'''Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent'''"
: One problem is that I can't find a 3.2% rise in murders in the official figures (above). In compiling these figures, I did notice a discrepancy between the two sources (the first two listed [[:image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|here]]), due to having to revise figures in subsequent years, so that ''might'' explain the lack of a 3.2% rise anywhere.
: The more serious problem from WND's point of view is that the figures are fluctuating, not consistently rising. 1996 was down on 1995, 1997 was up on 1996, 1998 was down on 1997, and 1999 was up on 1998! Anyone trying to make a claim that "homicides are up 3.2 percent" must be being selective with the data.
: Furthermore, although WND could not be blamed for this, the years since 1999 have shown a ''downward'' trend, with all years except 2002 and 2005 being drops over the previous year, and those two exceptions not being enough to change the trend.
* "'''In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent'''"
: I can't find gun homicides figures for Victoria at all. But the claim seems very unlikely to be true, or if it is true, it is an exception to the nationwide trend and probably caused by a very low base. Across Australia between 1995 and 1999, gun homicides were about one fifth of all homicides. If that holds true for Victoria, then Victoria's gun homicides for those years would have been around ten to twelve. A 300% increase would bring that up to 40 to 50, which is getting close to Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate. This is extremely unlikely. Alternatively, perhaps Victoria's gun homicide rate was lower than the national average to start with. In this case, it is definitely a very low base and not a good argument. Regardless, even if somehow the 300% figure is true, it must have occurred without an obvious impact on the total homicide rate for the state, and it is the exception to the (national) rule, where gun homicides went down every year except 1996 and 1999, and in 2005 were ''less than half'' the 1995 figure. Also obvious from the figures above is that Victoria's ''total'' homicide rate has fluctuated, with no clear trends up or down.
I'm not questioning some of the other claims (such as assaults being up) simply because I haven't gone to the effort of looking for the figures. But I have to wonder if they can be relied on either.

In summary, the WND article is of questionable accuracy to be used as a reliable source, and the 300% rise is unsafe to use in this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)

: Improvements to the article are welcome, but even the table above shows clear increases in violent crime, even gun crime in the years following the gun control. The data ten years later is virtually meaningless as their were worldwide declines in crime due to demographics, not gun control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 26 December 2007 (EST)

:: It does not show an increase in gun crime in the years following the new laws!! 1996 was the year of the Port Arthur massacre that led to the new laws. 35 people were killed that day, accounting for the large total seen in 1996 - so you should not be using 1996 as a post-gun-control-laws year. The following two years saw 75 deaths (up on 1995) and 54 deaths, slightly below the 1995 figure. The trend has been downwards ever since, to about half of what the prevailing rate was at the start of the table. So unless you are hanging your argument on the 75 deaths in 1997, which is just one data point out of the 11 given, I'm not sure what you are doing. (Note - over the period 1996 to 2005 the Australian population grew by about 14%, making the downward trend all the more marked.) [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 00:13, 27 December 2007 (EST)

:: I agree. Any "increase" that one might see is by being selective with the figures, picking out an atypical year. The trends are what is important, and the trends are generally downward. (I had meant to point out, as Ferret has now done, that the figures don't allow for population growth, so the downward trend is greater than shown.) Andy, I don't understand what you mean by "worldwide declines in crime ''due to demographics'', not gun control". What "demographics" are you talking about?
:: Also, you (Andy) have been making the point that widespread availability of guns reduces ''all'' (or most? or violent?) crime, and here you claim that the figures show an increase in "violent crime". But the figures don't show "violent crime" at all—they only show homicides. That is, the figures do not include rapes, assaults, armed robbery, etc. Just homicides. So they don't show ''anything'' about "violent crime" per se.
:: Furthermore, the introduction of gun restrictions in 1996 did not mean that all guns were handed in overnight. It took time, and as you noted, there were further restrictions introduced in 2002. So one would expect that the results of gun control legislation would take some time to show up, and eight years (1996 to 2004 for the robbery chart a few sections above) seems quite a reasonable time to me.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:03, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Denial of right to self-defense ==

<s>I simply included "armed" into the above. Gun control doesn't restrict citizens' rights to self-defense by punching or martial arts or baseball bats... But Karajou reverted me with this bizarre comment on my user page: ''Don't insert a word into Asclafly's statement on the main because you think it should be included; only Aschlafly can do that. Karajou 11:05, 30 December 2007 (EST)''
Only trying to help, you know? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:07, 30 December 2007 (EST)</s>

:That's my mistake; we have a debate going on in the main talk page which got pretty long, so my mistake was not reading it properly. And no, it wasn't bizarre. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::No problem. I meant it looked bizarre to me :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:10, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== UK 1997 Election ==

I'm a little confused about the linking between gun control in the UK and the Labour victory in the election. Being British myself I can submit more than enough evidence that gun control was very, very low down on the list of factors that combined to throw the Major Government out of power. Instead I could point to sleaze, the fact that the electorate was tired of the Tories, the inability of the Conservative Government to properly manage itself (see 'Breaking the Code', a book by Gyles Brandreth, a member of the Conservative Whip's Office (internal party organisation) which lists the missteps that they seemed to be dogged by), as well as the fiasco (there is no other word for it) of the Exchange Rate Mechanism also led to the Major Government losing its reputation for economic competence. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 09:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:I think the fact that you're nearly 500 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than the UK really speaks for itself. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 20:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, it does - for the simpleminded. See [[Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservatism]]. In fact, the more thoughtful realize that giving a gun to a stranger is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:: The problem with ApGriffith's argument is that it ignores that other factors might be involved. On the other hand, I've yet to see adequately explained what other factors might account for it.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::: Other causes are obvious: drug use, broken homes, violent culture, gambling, pornography, high criminal population, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, but at least some of those other factors also appear to apply in other countries with much lower rates of gun homicide. For example, does America really have a much higher drug use than other countries with lower gun homicide rates? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::::: The [[United States]] does have the highest rate of cocaine use, and by far the highest incarceration rate. The rate of fatherless families is probably far higher in the U.S. also.

::::: There's no getting around the fact that giving a gun to a stranger in any country is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it. Less than 1% of people are willing to engage in violent criminal activity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::::::I go both ways on this issue: On the one hand the logic seems to go against gun control - as andy pointed out, but in response to Andy: we tell our children not to talk to strangers - should we stop doing that since only less than 1% of people are willing to engage in violent criminal activity? I mean it really is tough, and I agree with the current laws that gun control laws should be dictated on a state-by-state basis --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: It's difficult to get valid comparable figures for some of these things. But I will concede that it does appear to be true that cocaine use in the United States is higher than other countries. I'm not sure if that applies to other illicit drugs also, but Australia does have the advantage of no borders with other countries, making it more difficult than most other places to get illegal substances into the country, so that might apply to other illicit drugs as well.
:::::: It does also appear—although this is where comparable figures are quite a problem—that America's fatherless home rate is a ''little'' higher than Australia, but not "far higher" as you suggested. But it's not likely to be enough to make that much of a difference. One pair of figures I found for single parent families was 16% in the U.S. and 14% in Australia.
:::::: From memory, Australia has about one quarter of all the poker machines in the world, but there wouldn't be too much crime associated with that sort of gambling I expect, and America probably has more casinos per capita than Australia, so you ''might'' be right on that.
:::::: A more violent culture in the U.S. would likely be a ''consequence'' of lack of gun control rather than a cause of more gun deaths, so that one is quite unconvincing. The same might be said for the "high criminal population".
:::::: Pornography you've suggested before and I've questioned that, and you've not produced any further evidence of pornography being worse in America, so I don't accept that one either.
:::::: In summary, at least one or two of your "other factors" might be true in the sense that those factors are more pronounced in America, and theoretically could lead to more gun deaths, but even though this means that one can't say that a higher gun death rate is not due to other factors, it still doesn't prove that it's not do do with the prevalence of guns. In other words, it ''could'' be other factors, but it still ''could'' be the guns. The case is still not made.

:::::: "''There's no getting around the fact that giving a gun to a stranger in any country is perhaps 99 times more likely to deter and prevent crime than to cause it.''": That appears to be a ''reasonable conclusion'', but it's not a "fact". Furthermore, I can put just as reasonable argument the other way: There's no getting around the "fact" that the more guns you have in a country, and the fewer controls on their safekeeping, the more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on a gun, and the more likely a gun will be used in a moment of passion or rage to kill someone, and the more likely that someone will be shot by accident.
:::::: So this issue is simply not as simple and straightforward as you make it out to be.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:07, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: I'm sorry, but aren't we getting more than a bit away from the original point here? Gun control, especially in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, had no influence, at all, on the 1997 General Election. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Why is gun control equated with the left wing?==

I have always been under the impression that people on the right tend to favour more ordered, law abiding societies. Surely, therefore, gun control is more likely to appeal to the ''right'', rather than the left. Take the Roman Empire - the carrying of arms (swords rather than guns, obviously) was banned for civilians, and it was a sign that an area had slipped into barbarism when this could no longer be enforced when the empire fell. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 12:16, 11 January 2008 (EST)

: There's no disputing that the left promotes [[gun control]], regardless of whether it actually reduces crime (it doesn't), and that [[conservatives]] support a full right of self-defense that includes the right bear arms. So your impression is wrong, I'm afraid.

: Are you right about the Roman Empire? I'm skeptical ... [[Peter]] carried a sword and cut off a soldier's ear at the beginning of the [[Passion]], and that was in the Roman Empire circa A.D. 33. Swording carrying was so common, in fact, that [[Jesus]] even praised the value in carrying one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::Peter was armed illegally. With regard to the right promoting the ownership of guns by civilians, this is not true of the right outside the USA. Indeed it was the Major government that tightened up the controls. With a pretty comprehensive ban on ownership of guns in the UK crime involving firearms is very low indeed - not even the police are usually armed. [[User:ApGriffith|ApGriffith]] 12:32, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wonder if Peter was armed illegally. I think I'm right in saying that they were in a semi-autonomous region of the Roman Empire and could have had various by-laws allowing armed civilians. Don't know just speculating. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:36, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::: Doubtful that Peter was armed illegally. Why wasn't he arrested then? I'd like to see some evidence for your claim. Swords were so common that Jesus even praised arming oneself with them.

::: The left led the push for [[gun control]] in the U.K. Let's not kid anyone here. A highly publicized school massacre followed by an immense media and leftist push got the job done. The Major government was a reluctant participant, at best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::''Why wasn't Peter arrested?'' Can you seriously not think of a logical explanation for that? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It's equated with the left wing because the liberal left are its primary proponents. They want the government to spearhead all social change, especially unpopular programs which can be forced on others.

By the way, I know a man in a US anti-terrorist force (sorry, I will not reveal any secrets here) who was nearly killed overseas because of gun control. He was [[unarmed]], escorting a captured terrorist when armed men attacked him. It was a miracle that he survived. Yes, he credits [[God]] for preserving his life.

But imagine the insanity of forbidding an anti-terrorism officer to carry a pistol! That combined with the rules against so-called "[[racial profiling]]" which means that Arabs and Muslims can't be excluded from access to secret information simply because some white or Christian Englishman has "a funny feeling" about him.

Liberals almost got my friend killed!! That's why I oppose them so strongly: they are the party of death; see [[Communism]], which killed over 100 million people ([[genocide]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Ed, are you sure that it wasn't simply a matter of your friend not having the right to carry arms in a foreign country? Certainly a UK anti-terrorism officer escorting a terrorist in the UK would be armed (if it was deemed necessary) but only on very rare occasions are foreign law-enforcement officers allowed to be armed in the UK. Arming the police (or anyone else) is not a liberal issue in the UK. At least no more than it is a conservative one. While I remain respectfully ignorant of the details of your friend's incident, American security personnel do have a reputation for not trusting local law enforcement agencies and try to conduct law enforcement on their own terms while abiding (mostly) with the local laws. It might have been (although this is of course pure personal conjecture on my part) that your friend's US agency might have been unwilling to accept armed local law enforcement assistance and therefore carried the risk of being unarmed while escorting a dangerous terrorist.
:There are two interesting exceptions to this general rule about foreign law enforcement agents not allowed to be armed in the UK. One is the French police at some UK ports and the Channel Tunnel entrance. The other is US armed protection officers during the visit of the US President. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:: Seeing armed police always makes me feel uneasy. I think it's instinctive. I grew up with unarmed cops around, and seeing them armed makes me feel freaked out. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

== Overview ==

Where do they teach anyone that the Overview for an encyclopedia article goes in the middle? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 11:58, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== "Western Societies" ==

The "Western societies" edit strikes me as unjustified, and even offensive. It implies that non-Western societies primarily use guns to attack each other. I don't think so!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: It may not be that accurate, i.e. too narrow, but neither was the previous wording accurate, in my opinion. In some parts of the world, guns do seem to be more for offensive purposes, but perhaps I was a bit hasty with making that change. I think the wording needed to be changed, though. It was a very general statement, making no distinction between different uses for guns. Guns are used for (a) personal defensive purpose, (b) sporting (target) shooting, (c) hunting (duck shooting, deer shooting, etc.), (d) shooting pest animals, and other farming purposes, (e) culling excessive animals, (f) police and security guard purposes, (f) military purposes, (g) crime, (h) para-military(?) purposes (rebels, etc.), (i) terrorism, and perhaps others. In the U.S., most of those would apply, except (hopefully) the last couple. And apart from perhaps military, (a) is probably accounts for most gun sales. In some other western countries (e.g. Australia), (a) would not apply, but (b) to (f) apply (and a little bit of (g)). In some other parts of the world, the relative proportions would change quite considerably, and I wonder if (a) is really all that high in those places. But then, does (f) come under the category of "defensive" or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Philip, violent criminals are less than 1% of the population in ''all'' countries, Eastern or Western. There is no way to convert that basic fact to a claim that guns are purchased mostly for criminal or militarily offensive purposes ''anywhere''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Andy, that may be so (although I suspect that there are ''some'' places where the figure is not as low as 1%), but that response only compares (a) to (f) and (g). There's also (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). Now perhaps they don't make up a large percentage of sales either, but then again, perhaps some of them do in some countries (e.g. Australia). I'm happy for it to be changed, although not happy for it to be changed back to what it was, as that was too simplistic. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Merely laws? / Opening graph==

Gun control is not simply a legislative act. Had there been guns before nations or empires, it would be simply an act of personal politic. I understand that the arguement I just outlined is purely hypothetial, but it has relevance, so lemme get to that. The opening of this article, within the first three words, outlines that it is purely to discuss gun control '''laws'''. I haven't read the entirety of the article (it's freakin' yuge), so perhaps I'm being hasty here. But is there any kind of laws which do not simply refer to "firearms", "projectiles", "guns", etc., as anything but axioms. Who's to say a bow-and-arrow aren't just a sharp, slow, wooden gun? I'm serious about this. Gun control, in essence, is about the right to carry shaped metal; about who has the right to instigate friction, momentum, and chemical reactions. It is from this position that I consider myself anti-gun control (don't tack me up for POV-pushing, I mention this about myself in the interest of full disclosure).

My second point is the statement that weapons are "acquired mostly for defensive and sporting purpouses". As a website which takes into account, and is somewhat infamous for points of view expressed on, as well as talk page debates on, subjects such as Creation, Religion, the Universe, sexuality, etc., I think statements like this should be broadened in terms of scope and history rather than definition or other such criterion. Through the course of human history, guns have overwhelmingly been meant for military purpouses; to kill other people on the other side of an imaginary borders. The AK-47 alone has been produced, in various forms, almost 600 million times, mostly to foment and engage in revolutions. It is irresponsible and false to say that guns are acquired mostly for defensive/sporting purpouses. Unless, of course, this articles takes some post-human objectivist thing about all of us really just being animals, and all murder is just "sporting". But that's just as ridiculous.

[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 16:45, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
: I wasn't happy about the "mostly defensive" wording either (and the "sporting" bit got added as a result). But I think that "mostly defensive" might be closer to correct than you realise. First, the phrase is in the present tense, so what was the case in the past is not relevant. Sure, maybe some history could be included in the article, but it doesn't have to be in that phrase. Second, even in the past, if people acquired weapons for offensive purposes, likely at least as many acquired them for ''defensive'' purposes, to defend themselves against those who got them for ''offensive'' purposes. So the bit about them being mostly for defensive purposes is likely to be correct in most cases, I suspect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:11, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wilson's argument should be sourced and referenced to some typical group or individual who espouses it. I hardly think he's the only one who thinks this way, it it would be good to provide a contrasting view:

::* Through the course of human history, guns have overwhelmingly been meant for military purpouses; to kill other people on the other side of an imaginary borders. The AK-47 alone has been produced, in various forms, almost 600 million times, mostly to foment and engage in revolutions. It is irresponsible and false to say that guns are acquired mostly for defensive/sporting purpouses.

::It is a typical [[liberal]] POV that we need stricter gun control laws, on the grounds that "guns have only one purpose, i.e., to kill people" and that "they are used more for offensive purposes (i.e., selfish aggression) than defensive purposes".

::We can contrast the liberal POV with the facts which Lott brings out. In America there are at least one million defensive uses of guns each year. This doesn't even count the number of robberies and shootings that don't occur simply because someone is known to be armed. Who would dare shoot a Secret Service agent while she was protected Hillary or Dubya? And how many people dare stick up a Brink's guard with a pistol in plain view? (Don't forget policemen in uniform.)

::As to the larger issue of whether guns are bad in general, we must ask whether the "[[just war]]" concept has any validity. Would God ever bless a nation to fight back against a would-be conqueror? A deeper and thornier question might be, would God ever bless one people to conquer another? (See [[Book of Joshua]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Gun control is also the POV of many conservatives, and their reasons are not (limited to) "guns only have one purpose" nor "they are used more for offensive purposes". There is also, for example, "guns can kill accidentally and in moments of passion, which they couldn't if they weren't there". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==
Before I get in a edit war I would like to know how the current picture adds anything to the article except make it seem like a blog entry. Please rationally support your arguments or don't comment back. No insults or foundationless name calling (i.e. liberal ________). There is too much of that here. I remove the picture in one day unless there is a decent argument presented. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 19:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
:Instead of deleting the picture, how about adding a caption along the lines of "A poster produced by pro-gun activists", or whatever is actually the case with that image? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

User:ComplexModulo

2008-06-02T03:32:02Z

ComplexModulo: New page: My name is ComplexModulo and I have a B.S. in Mathematics from The University of Washington, and my masters in Mechanical Engineering from Duke. I currently teach middle school math, as th...

My name is ComplexModulo and I have a B.S. in Mathematics from The University of Washington, and my masters in Mechanical Engineering from Duke. I currently teach middle school math, as the engineering world often disappointed me.

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-06-02T01:08:35Z

ComplexModulo: /* You're all missing the point */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Anything can be misused, and certainly homeschooling ''can'' have these problems if it is not done properly, but you seem to be seeing government schools through rose-coloured glasses. When I was in primary school, there was some racism there (although I didn't understand what it was at the time), but I remember none of that from Sunday School and church. Many homeschooling families are Christians, and my point is that they can get many of these social interactions via church and church-related activities, and that's likely to be a better environment for them than a government school environment that often has undesirable values. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps I'm simply recalling my own experiences, which were better than most since I attended one of the better elementary schools in my county before finishing elementary and middle school in the fundamental system, and my high school was one of the better schools in the county as well. I suppose it all should be taken on a case by case basis, and my problem then is with the elitism (and in some cases blatant discrimination against public schools) exhibited around Conservapedia instead of having any problems with homeschooling. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 11:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Capolavoro046, I read as far as your absurd accusation of "elitism" above. There is nothing about homeschooling or this site that is "elitist" and I suspect that ideology is clouding your opinions here. Maybe you did have a good experience in [[public school]] at some time in the past, but without more information it is impossible to assess that. No one is claiming that every student is ruined by public school, but public school does deprive its students of classroom prayer. As a teacher, I can assure you that such deprivation does have an adverse effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Considering that one of this site's very strong focal points is trying to influence homeschooling, I would say that my "accusations" (though I would describe them as observations) of some people having an elitist view are not absurd at all. For example, the entire list of [[professor values]] demonstrates the elitist view, as its sole purpose is propaganda against teachers. Do not be so quick to apply a label to everyone that falls into a classification. I think they have a word for that... what is it? Oh yes, stereotyping. To address the depravity of prayer, I disagree passionately with you. Every year in school, we as students were offered a "moment of silence" following the pledge of allegiance (which did not ignore "Under [[God]]") for prayer, among other things. I feel that you have a very closed-minded view of things, and coming from a SysOp from a site that works so fervently against the media, I feel you use media coverage of incidences in public schools as a crutch, and choose not to look at things on a case by case basis because it could possibly hurt your arguments. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 23:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, and as far as a direct example of elitism on this site: The caption under the photo about the fight that went up on YouTube reads, "A fight typical of [[public school]] students." I wish I knew you, Ashclafay, so I could ask you to look me in the eye and say that isn't an elitist statement. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 15:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: Capolavoro046, I'll look you in the eye and ask you to be concise. I didn't read all your comments above. Surely you can make your point well in a few short sentences. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::You know, having an outspoken proponent of homeschooling such as yourself respond to a reasoned objection with "Too long; didn't read." would not exactly fill me with confidence about you teaching my hypothetical children. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I've been accused of wordiness many times; but I can also be concise. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

: My addition is what happens when the parents are not effective teachers? I have no problem with homeschooling, and believe that both homeschooling and public school have their advantages and disadvantages, but I do believe that while teachers at public school are forced to be held to a standard (not that they always meet it, and not always are the standards enforced, but generally) whereas homeschooling is not always as effective as this article would have you believe. Looking at the pros and cons of every issue is a good thing, and maybe some credibility would be gained by this article by adding some of the potential disadvantages. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 23:19, 29 May 2008 PST

== Jordin Sparks ==

Jordin Sparks won the American Idol contest one year, which is good and fun for her. I wish her the best. But does that media award place her as a "prominent American" in the league of the others on the list? I don't think so, and think she should remain a footnote on the music issue and not in the main list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:I added her because we have so few examples of homeschoolers born in the late 20th century, and thus homeschooled during the modern homeschooling movement. Such people are likely to be less prominent, simply because they are younger. I have some thoughts on how to manage this, but I must do our schooling here at home before spending time editing this morning. {{unsigned|Hsmom}}

:: If there is a goal of having homeschoolers born in the late 20th century, then the math prodigies would be better picks. But I don't see what is so special about the late 20th century. Homeschooling now is not that different from 100 years ago. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==You're all missing the point==
ASchlafly says homeschooling is superioer. Therefore, homeschooling IS superior. How come you all have a hard time understanding this? Don't you know by now, as goes the Schlafly family, so goes the world?

"L'etat, c'est moi!"

{{unsigned|Jros83}}

: See if you can learn how to spell "superior".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Since when is sex a life-long addiction?

==Diet==
Parents whose children attend public schools can't constantly monitor what is served at the schools. Diet is worse in public schools because the "junk" is readily available and rather inexpensive too.

A trial experiment is in order. Stock a homeschooler's fridge with a variety of "health" and "junk" foods and leave them to their studying/eating. I think you can view one example... 5 cans of w*****d c***m disappear within a week.

Also, "appears" isn't fact. +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 16:18, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

: You make good points. But whatever the reason, the difference is not likely to change. And parents don't usually put greasy french fries in the fridge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: What is preventing the parents from sending the child to school with a healthy lunch instead? The related question is are cuts to school lunch programs having a negative impact on the options for the school for providing healthy food (fast food style is less expensive than getting good produce). Ketchup is not a vegetable. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:25, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't know if this is a difference between Australia and America or between now and when I went to school, but when I was in primary school (years 0 to 6), the school didn't serve ''any'' food, and we either brought our own or (rarely in my case) bought it from the milk bar over the road. Admittedly there was a canteen in high school (years 7 to 12), but again, I rarely used it, instead bringing my lunch from home.

I can quite accept that the diet of homeschoolers is better than in government schools (although it should have a reference), but how much of this is because the homeschooling parent can "constantly monitor" what their children eat, and how much is because the homeschooling parent cares more than some (not all) parents of government school students, which is likely a factor in why they are homeschooling in the first place?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:05, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Abstinence

2008-06-01T20:50:52Z

ComplexModulo: /* Balance */

{{Protect|TK}}

Thanks guys! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Several Proposed Changes==

These three sentences need some more though: ''A study funded by the Administration of liberal President Bill Clinton through Mathematica Policy Research found that "the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth." But this study reached this liberal conclusion by omitting abstinence education during the pivotal high schools.

Liberals oppose abstinence policies and Planned Parenthood, a powerful liberal organization, profits from teenage sexual activity. Yet the facts are undisputed: abstinent teens do not get infected with STDs or become pregnant from having sex. ''

In the first one, liberal should be removed. It's redundant to mention Clinton's ideology as it should be common knowledge. In the second sentence, the word liberal also needs to be scrubbed. A conclusion cannot be "liberal." It's just a conclusion. Furthermore, the information is not corroborated by the source, which is cryptic and biased. In the final sentence, Planned Parenthood doesn't need an appositive; that's why it has a link to its own article. I'd dispute that it "profits" from teenage sexual activity, because that's some very gray area right there. Finally, the facts are ''not'' undisputed - recent studies have shown that "abstinent" teens are not any more likely than their peers to actually abstain from sexual activity. Then, they're left unprepared and lacking the knowledge to practice safe sex witch promulgates STD's and teen pregnancies. That doesn't need to be said in the article, but the article needs to reflect this aspect of reality in some way.

I would propose changing those sentences to read in this way: ''A study funded by the administration of President Bill Clinton through Mathematica Policy Research found that "[abstinence-only] programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth." However, this study has been criticized for not being comprehensive and for perhaps selectively using data from its sample-set.''

''Abstinence-only Education is typically supported by Conservatives. Left-leaning politicians and organizations, such as Planned Parenthood (one of the most powerful groups campaigning for comprehensive sex education) tend to contest the efficacy of the programs. Conservatives tend to adopt the stance that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent the transmission of STD's and teenage pregnancy, while liberals tend to favor comprehensive sex education to achieve these ends.'' '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 20:55, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'd discuss them with Ed first. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Stryker, you change them on RW if you want, but do not attempt, once again, to obfuscate Liberal [[deceit]] by removing the word "Liberal" by saying it is redundant! A conclusion based upon Liberal [[deceit]] such as you wish to obscure from this wiki, is indeed a Liberal biased "conclusion". --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:55, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

==Problem with Grammar and Accuracy==

It drives me nuts when I can't edit for grammar! This sentence: ''But this study reached this liberal conclusion by omitting abstinence education during the pivotal high schools.'' clearly needs editing. However, in doing the research to do so (reading the references) I found that the paragraph doesn't accurately reflect the references. While Family Research Council is right that the study didn't cover the high school years, the study authors raise essentially the same point. A better way to put it would be something like:
:''A study by Mathematica Policy Research, funded by President Bill Clinton's administration, of four abstinence education programs funded under Title V Section 510 "had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth."<ref>Mathematica Policy Research: Impacts of Four Abstinence Education Programs[http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp]</ref> The authors point out that "Most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs are implemented in upper elementary and middle schools and most are completed before youth enter high school", and note that "the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented in high school or began at earlier ages but continued through high school." The Family Research Council added that "one logical conclusion is that to achieve the greatest effectiveness, programs must be intensive and long-term, so that the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to reject sex before marriage are constantly reinforced--particularly in the pivotal high school years."<ref>Family Research Council: Mathematica Study Doesn't Add Up to the End of Abstinence[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU07D09]</ref>--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:09, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
''
==Concerns about Use of Necklace Image==
I am concerned that using the image of the necklace in this article does not meet "fair use" standards, as it is not used to illustrate an article about the necklace. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Beads_MFA_Boston.jpg]. It is also unclear how the image and the article are related. The image belongs to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. I am far from an expert on copyright issues or the image in question; I just wanted to bring the question to the attention of others who are more qualified to make an appropriate decision regarding the use of the image.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:25, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Clinton and Heritage Foundation ==

If the article goes to the trouble of pointing out that Clinton is liberal, shouldn't it also mention that the [[Heritage Foundation]] is conservative? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:14, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Balance ==

Can we balance out the Benefits of abstinence, with an arguments against abstinence section?

:Perhaps you should first discuss here what you think are arguments against abstinence. While it is a personal decision, the benefits certainly seem to be strong for those who choose that path until marriage. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't like the first reason for being abstinent. What if we do not believe in God?
:Then abstinence/non-abstinence is the least of your problems. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 15:48, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. I can have my own reasons, many of which you have included on the site, for wanting to be abstinent, and not be a Christian/believe in God.

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-01T20:46:49Z

ComplexModulo: /* Hypocrisy */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

: There is nothing "pious" about this. Values and lifestyles can cause harm just as surely as smoking can. Do we criticize anti-smoking statements as "pious"? Of course not. Highlighting the harm caused by [[Hollywood Values]] is not pious either. In fact, it can be scientifically studied.

: The individual examples, just like individual examples of prominent smokers who died young, are powerful and just as compelling as more-difficult-to-find statistics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I suppose I'm not conveying my point as clearly as I'd like to. One thing I would like to say is that we should not include James Dean on this list: the fact that he died in an auto-accident isn't related to Hollywood.

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-01T20:04:09Z

ComplexModulo: /* Hypocrisy */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

: This isn't "finger-pointing", and of course forgiveness remains available to anyone who requests it. But we're not going to stand by quietly as certain values destroy people. Would you also object if we identified how smoking has killed many people who smoke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, perhaps finger-pointing was the wrong word. I'm just saying, we shouldn't piously observe Hollywood stars and forget our own behavior. I would not object to identifying the wrongs of smoking, but what I find a little silly is the big list of stars and their own individual crimes. I think a more general article would be better, and we should avoid a "more words is better" approach, like Wikipedia does.

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Abstinence

2008-06-01T19:38:30Z

ComplexModulo: /* Balance */

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-06-01T19:35:03Z

ComplexModulo: /* Hypocrisy */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

This article is full of finger-pointing. I realize that Hollywood stars live lives full of questionable behavior, and I agree that they do not set good role models for all of the young fans that watch their movies and follow their lives, but we should look at our own lives, and not be so quick to point fingers like this. Shouldn't we be promoting forgiveness, as the Lord intends us?

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

==Rob Knox==
He died protecting his little brother from two armed assailants. If those are Hollywood Values, sign me up.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree with Tom Moore on this one... There has been some mistake, just a misunderstanding.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2026826/Harry-Potter-actor's-father-Colin-Knox-visits-murder-scene.html "The father of a teenage actor who appears in the next Harry Potter film today visited the scene where the 18-year-old was stabbed to death trying to protect his younger brother from a knifeman."] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. [[Hollywood values]] include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::Hey, like I said, if Hollywood values include defending your little brother from being one of the many stabbed by a stranger with two knives, sign me up as a proponent.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, that's not saying much, because I would expect you to have been a proponent before. By the way, before you jump to conclusions, do you know who brought Rob Knox's under-aged 16-year-old brother to that drunken, late-night mayhem? Or is that question considered inappropriate when the controlling standards are [[Hollywood values]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no notion who brought him there. I am not sure it matters, since the problem there would be a young man bringing his under-age brother out on the town drinking, something that is relatively minor and which doesn't seem worthy of condemnation. But since you bring it up, do you know? If not, why did you put this up in the article before you found out?
::::Eh, who cares... it's your site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I looked, and can't find that information. I'll check the CNN report of the story.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope, doesn't seem to have been reported. Although incidentally, while you're reading this, you might want to add to the News section that Bob Barr was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for this year. [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html Story is here], and conservatives are probably interested.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: The account the fight which killed Rob Knox is described differently from your accounts above here: [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1204418.ece]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was going by the link above, wherein a stranger with two kitchen knives approached them and began stabbing people. This is a much more detailed account, but no less tragic. His friend thought a stranger had stolen his phone and accused the guy of it, and later the guy comes back with some friends, one of whom starts stabbing people.
::::::At the very least, this change to the article is in very bad taste so soon. But again, you own this place, so I guess you get to make that final call. I obviously disagree with the whole premise of the article, so I don't expect you to take my views much to account on the matter.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

::At best, it's a weak example that doesn't serve the broad thrust of your argument particularly well. As charity decreases, it looks variously: inappropriate -> ridiculous -> mean-spirited. If you insist on keeping it, I'd suggest making a new section and leading in with the kind of qualifications you made above. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 20:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm seeking the truth just as others should be here, and there is obviously more to the Rob Knox tragedy than the simple story that you insisted upon above. According to the more detailed account, the fight was expected. Note also that the victim's under-aged brother is an Olympic-level expert in karate, and that the fight was in or around a bar after midnight. This is still a terrible tragedy, to be sure, but values undeniably played a role in it, as in deaths from drunken driving. We'll say prayers for the victims '''and''' speak out against the causes. Liberals do neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A young man who has played a minor role in a movie is stabbed to death in London, and within hours of his death you add him to this page as an example of "Hollywood values". That is '''vile'''. I do not know the details of the case, but nor do you, and nor does anyone. Someone has just been arrested, and the facts are simply not known. Jumping to conclusions like this, and acting with unseemly haste to use the Knox family's tragedy as fuel for your anti-Hollywood/anti-liberal campaign is disgusting. Please delete this appalling addition to the article. It does not do the Conservapedia image any good at all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:29, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:There's probably a name for those who make capital out of the suffering of others. Oh yes - SCUM! [[User:WarrenG|WarrenG]] 08:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Chaplin==
I saw the addition for Chaplin under divorce and I wonder if it's not worth mentioning some of the large age gaps between married Hollywood types? Chaplin met his last wife (Oona?) when she was dating one of his sons. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:35, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, that's shocking. Yes, please add that with a citation. (I should have added a citation for mine also.) Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you, will do so. I have it mentioned in a book at home, so I'll put it up later tonight, with a few other examples I know are in there. --[[User:JessicaT|JessicaT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 10:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Peter Singer

2008-06-01T19:24:52Z

ComplexModulo: New page: This doesn't talk about Singer's efforts to feed millions of starving children throughout the world, it only seems to mention his tendencies towards favoring abortion.

This doesn't talk about Singer's efforts to feed millions of starving children throughout the world, it only seems to mention his tendencies towards favoring abortion.

Talk:Planned Parenthood

2008-05-27T04:03:30Z

ComplexModulo: /* Remove */

"The suit said Goode, who didn't return to the clinic to have the dilators removed, had an infection and the dilators became a conduit, spreading it throughout her body......Planned Parenthood mailed two letters to Goode stating the dilators needed to be taken out" (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/73861.html-Associated Press 6/21/07).

Edrica Goode did not follow doctor's instructions, and this is not the fault of the Planned Parenthood organization. The mother in this case Aletheia Meloncon is looking to place blame on someone for her daughter's lack of personal responsibility and her personal choices.

This is another failed attempt by abortion opponents to strike up propaganda and fear in the media to guide women away from choosing to have an abortion. As with any other form of surgery or medical procedure there are risks, especially if you are not responsible and do not follow doctors orders.

If your going to state facts, please state them truthfully!

[[Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive1]]

== Moved from my talk page ==

I raised the point that the [[Planned Parenthood]] article doesn't address the good things PP does. It's above, in the "terrorism" section. I consider that unresolved.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I suggest that you post a list on my user talk page of the 5 or 10 most important good things which [[Planned Parenthood]] does? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Replying to Ames, those exams are a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does, and it is not how it makes its money. Abortion is its money-maker. If you can support your claim in a meaningful way, then it could be added ''after'' the central activity of Planned Parenthood is explained. One doesn't emphasize that a tobacco company supports the arts without first explaining in detail how it profits from selling deadly cigarettes, targeting and addicting teenagers, exporting the stuff, etc. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For the vast majority of people who PP interacts with, their interactions are defined by well-care, not abortions. But, conceding the point ''arguendo'', if you think that the majority of an industry's actions should be viewed primarily, perhaps you agree that science should be treated the same way, with "mainstream" science portrayed first, and "creationistarianism," or whatever they call it these days, should be portrayed second. After all, you wouldn't want to insinuate that a group's minority dominated its perspective. Agreed? 
Anyways, though, the modern PP is much more of a sexual health advocacy group, [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/press-releases-5593.htm as seen here], most of their issues relate to sexual education et al, not abortion. I'm sure you have statistics to the contrary. Let's see them!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, mainstream science should not get a pass. It makes special claims which religions do not. Science not only claims to have 'the truth' (which each religion generally does, even on matters where it contradicts all other religions) - but it claims to do so in an intersubjectively accessible manner. That is, it freely submits all its claims to confirmation by others. The reproducibility of results is key. And [[falsifiability]] is another. It's like that Denzel Washington sub thriller, where it takes two officers' keys to open the same to get the missile launch codes.

:Where mainstream science fails -- and we all fail sometimes ("No one is perfect, no not one; all fall short ...") -- is when it stops allowing its findings to be scrutinized (see {{wp|scientific_data_witholding}} quick, before they delete it) and refuses to submit to any test capable of disproving the theory. The latter two points are hallmarks of [[Pseudoscience]], and no one likes the 'annoying revealer' unless they have enough sanity to be "dedicated to reality at all costs" ([[M. Scott Peck]]).

:Religion is based on faith and revelation, and therefore need not subject itself to scrutiny. To be polite, we should not run other people's religion through a wringer, especially if we're not willing to let our own political, social or scientific notions suffer the same scrutiny.

:In comparisons between science and religion, the [[burden of proof]] is on science, because of its special claim as mentioned above. Scienece says, "We have proved this". Religion humbly and meekly says, "Here is what we believe."

::Right... but surely you agree, based on the separate burdens of proof, that religious faith should not substitute for scientific proof.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: When someone presents their faith as science, they are allowing it to be rung through the ringer and also need to meet the requirements of falsifiability and reproducibility. There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what the Bible says and I believe that". However to say "This is what the Bible says and science is wrong because it doesn't match that" is implicitly subjecting that faith and revelation to the same standards as is demanded on science. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Better, but very bias ==

This article is too anti-planned parenthood. It focused only on negative things and needs to be fixed. Thanks.

Request that the quotes section be removed. This article is about Planned Parenthood, NOT Margaret Sanger. Therefore, having a bunch of random quotes that make her look like an idiot are NOT needed. What's the point? Is this telling us anything usefull or educational about Planned Parenthood? No, it is making the article look like crap.

== Logical fallacy alert ==

''Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.''

This is confusing correlation with causation. Minorities are mostly poor, and most abortions are by the poor. Therefor this particular paragraph is pretty much meaningless in the context. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[user:Conservative]]-ing of this article ==

'''''Hallmarks of [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] Edits'''''
# Text consisting largely block quotes with little analysis.
# Poor, confusing structure, resulting from lack of analysis and excessive division.
# Aggressive section titling.
# One-sided citation of authority with no balancing viewpoint.
# Protected Article.
Remind you of anything, dear reader? I think we all know whose article this is now, and why that's bad.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::AmesG regarding the veracity of one of his edits: "I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight. Just like how you approach science, [[user:Conservative|Conservative]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]

::Are you trying to pick a fight again AmesG? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== George Grant quote ==

Quote:

"Throughout the 200+ pages of this book Sanger called for the
elimination of "human weeds," for the cessation of charity, for the
segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the
sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[4]...

4. Grant, George. Grand Illusions
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), p. 55."

From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt

George Grant Footnote: Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilizations (New York: Brentano's, 1922), page 264.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I fail to see how that quote is relevant to '''Planned Parenthood'''. This is an entry on PP, not Sanger. If you want to talk about Sanger, do it on her entry, I can't argue with that. But to discredit an organization simply by attacking its founder borders on an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::: See the introduction to the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: I fear for what would be written on a hypothetical Britapedia if the same was to be applied there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:11, 5 April
:::See the quote regarding poor people. see the data which suggest they targeting of minorities according to the news organization . etc etc etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative2007 (EDT)

:I believe at the time she would have spoken it, the word "moron" was an actual medical term, not the pejorative it is today.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I forgot, Conservative. This is "your" article now so I should expect plenty of out-of-context quotes and irrelevant information. My bad; carry on. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Colin! sshhhh... sarcasm bad. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Colin, Show me what quotes are out of context. Please don't claim without demonstrating. Secondly, how is the census data which strongly suggest they target minorities according to the news organization irrelevant? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." is taken out of context. Read what she's actually arguing there. While I may not agree with her, it's not the oh so horrible statement you portray it to be. Secondly, I never said anything about census data; getting a little defensive are we? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Colin, you should be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. You could present her arguments for her indefensible statements and you could personally pass out the Margaret Sanger awards each year. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Thank you for you ad hominem attack. I will take that to mean you have no real argument against what I said and are resorting to your typical way of handling things. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Remove ==

Remove the quotes section. It's stupid and has nothing to do with planned parenthood. It makes the article look all evil and dumb. Just because someone might be all OMG PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS EBIL1111 doesn't mean you should screw up an article to make it biased. This article is about PLANNED PARENTHOOD, not the lady who founded it. If you want to have a section of nonsense talky-talk go make your own article on the lady and write whatever nonsene you want. But whoever is protecting this article, I kindly request you remove that section.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

God damnit what the hell is taking so long stop ignoring me! alteast respond with a no instead of just ignoring me! xK

[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ann Coulter said that Planned Parenthood is using "health care" as a euphemism for "abortion". There are not a "healthcare provider" in the general sense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Depends on what you mean by health care...yes they provide abortion resources, but also contraception, STD treatment and counseling, etc. If abortion is outlawed, they would still have much to provide.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 19:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You should probably remove the quote that says something along the lines of "Planned Parenthood promotes the use of pornography to attain sexual pleasure." Honestly, you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT prevent people from having sex/masturbating. With this in mind, would you rather a kid pleasures himself to pornography, or engage in intercourse, possibly leading to an unplanned birth, which would only increase the population.

Talk:Slavery

2008-05-27T03:20:29Z

ComplexModulo: /* Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history. */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::So G-d figured since Man was going to do it anyway, might as well set out rules for it, but not necessarily condone it? So G-d's approach to slavery is basically the same as the liberal approach to pre-marital sex?

::Wonderful people, I thought this was supposed to be a conservative christian encyclopedia, where G-d's word is heeded and given the utmost respect. Apparently I was wrong. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not unlike divorce; God hate's divorce presumably as much as slavery, yet allowed it because of man's sinfullness, stubborness, and hard heartedness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== "[[Old Testament Era]]" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:It's a peculiarly Christian concept of history. Everything after Jesus was born is the New Testament Era; history stretching back from then to around the time Moses received the Law (and/or the Ten Commandments) is the Old Testament Era. Some theologians or historians might extend that back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it gets 'murky' back their.

:Anyway, it's obviously not a secular concept. Try [http://www.the-highway.com/law1_Wenham.html this reference]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Christianity's dealing with the Old Testament uses (since we're not Jewish). My point was that "Old Testament Era" is unnecessarily broad and doesn't really define itself clearly; the provided link certainly did nothing to answer my question. There's also the issue that the time line between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New is not unbroken. Other historical events occur, thus making the term "Old Testament Era" vague and useless in this context. I think it should be more definite or perhaps more reliant on concrete dates, etc. Of course, there's also the issue that there is obviously slavery in both the "Old Testament Era", "The New Testament Era", and the "Post-Testaments Era". --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I've changed it to "Under the Mosaic Law...". Better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== Islam ==
Islam is exactly a place name, i.e, it means "The Realm of Peace." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:Begging your pardon but Islam translates into English as "submission" (i.e. submission to God).--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 22:53, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Islam is a contraction of "Dar al Salem" (Salem in Semitic languages means "peace") Dar al Salem is perpeturally at war with Dar al Harb, or the "Realm of Conflict,", i.e. those areas and persons who inhabit those areas outside Realm of Peace. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Begging your pardon again Rob, but you're incorrect. Please refer to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Islam for the origin of the word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 23:01, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::::My humblest apologies for using Wikipedia as a source, and I pray you forgive me, and I issue all appropriate warnings about its veracity, etc., but its late at nite and I promise to do better next time. But let's look at WP's entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam here]:
:::::*Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of submission) is a term used to refer to those '''lands''' (emhasis mine) under Islamic rule. In the orthodox tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of peace and dar al-Harb, the house of war.
::::Ed. note: Tentative conclusion based upon a suspect source, (a) "peace" and "submission" have basically the same connotation in Arabic, and (b) this does not refer to a verb, but rather a domain, or place name. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:17, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:That might be the origin of the word [written before edit conflicts with Porthos and RobS], but in normal everyday use, it is the name of a religion, not a physical Earthly location. I tried to make a similar change, but was beaten to it by Samwell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Modern [[nation state]]s, such as [[Saudi Arabia]], are entirely a Western Christian invention, probably dating from the time of Charlemagne's sons. Islam does not recognize Western Christian ascendency over Islam, and indeed views dividing Islam up into nation states by the British, French, and other European Imperial powers, as the root cause of their problems. Saudia Arabia is entirely a creation of Western Christendom; the Arabs refer to it as the Arabian Penninsula, really it proper name. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Dar-el-Islam = the realm of Muslims --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:15, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, is this now an academic argument about the meaning of the word, or are you trying to make a case that the article should revert to using "Islam" as a place? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Disregarding the non sequitur about nation-states, I think we can agree that Islam is not a geographical location any more than "Christianity" or "Buddhism" is. Regarding the words, "Islam" comes from '''الإسلام''', which translates ''directly'' to "submission". Dar al-Islam ('''دار الإسلام''') translates to "house of submission", as the term ''Dar al-Islam'' was used primarily ''after'' the advent of Islam as a religion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::I think you have it exactly incorrect; it is ignoring these facts is precisely the grievance that motivated [[Osama bin Laden]]. Islam is indeed a place name, while "Western Civilization" is the modern secularized term applied to what earlier documents refer to as "Western Christendom." None of the so-called "Islamic states" are indigenous creations. They all were carved out of Western [[spheres of influence]] from so-called "Western [[Imperial]] Powers."
::The original (primary source) Koranic language refers to Dar al Sa-lĕm, or the Realm of Peace, Abode of Peace, House of Peace, or other translated versions. The people of the House of Peace are called the "ummah", from which get we the "ummah of Sa-lĕm", or mu-sa-lĕm. Ĭ-sa-lĕm is itself a [[contraction]] (a contraction is like the word "can't"), Ĭ-sa-lĕm is a contraction of Dar-al-Sa-lĕm.
::However, now we have gone past the original primary source into a body of literature spawned by Koranic writing in a multitude of languages, this may be referred to as its "civilizational aspects," to use the term of recent origin my [[Samuel Huntington]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Clash_of_Civilizations]. What we are discussing here is contrasting civilizational idioms. But in short, ask any Muslim and they will tell you, Islam is primarily a place name, from which a civilization and religious faith also have grown out of. And the Realm of Peace is perpetually at war with the enemies of God, or the "faithless", also called infidels ("kufr", sometimes "kufir").
::The concept of [[nation state]] arose in the division of the land of the Franks afrer Charles the Great (Charle-Magna) most historians would probably agree. It is entirely Western, and Christian in both concept and origin. Nation states were imposed upon Islam, and the Arab nation, pretty much universally after the [[Treaty of Versailles]] (less then 90 years ago). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:16, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I did just ask a Muslim coworker of mine and she seemed pretty certain that Islam is not, nor ever has been, a place name.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:50, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::::A disciple of [[Elijah Muhammad]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:56, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, her parents immigrated here from Pakistan apparently. She tells me she's Sunni by tradition.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:03, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, you didn't answer my question on whether you are still arguing for the article to revert to using Islam as a place. I'm gathering, however, that perhaps you are.

Even if you are correct (and I'm not convinced) that Islam is a place, then it appears that the argument really is that it is ''used as'' a place by Muslims. However, it is not used as a place by non-Muslims. So are you arguing that we should use it as a place in this article despite the fact that most of the readers of the article do not understand the word that way? Surely even if you are technically correct, we should use wording that the average student would understand.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:It is nothing I'd wrestle to the mat over, I understand it is more a "civilizational" idea, although sooner or later in several articles I'd like to make some of the points outlined above. But as to slavery in Islam, this article may need a whole subsection on it, (this is why I like just referring to it as Islam, and not "Islamic countries") because a very, very strong case can made that the annual worldwide pilgrimage to Mecca for the past 1400 has been intimately bound up with the slave trade.
:So, we have some nice controversies to look forward to, when I get the time. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:18, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::Are there alternative terms that could be used, such as "Islamic communities", "Islamic areas", "Islamic societies", or something along that line? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::That's what is in there now, "Islamic countries", of course this then opens the debate, which ones? what about some "Islamic countries" that do have a modicum of multiculturalism? (Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia spring instantly to mind); then you have to debate the relative merits of each "Islamic [[nation state]]'s" involvement in human trafficing or the slave trade, and within which specific timeframe (i.e. after the "Islamic state" recieived so-called "independence"?, or the previous 1400 years?).
:::All this ignores the underlying idea that Islam for 1400 years did not have local prisons to incarcerate incorrible offenders, but rather Islamic communities along the pilgrimage route just sold off the town drunk to a passing slave caravan headed for Mecca where he could be resold at a higher price to someone rich enough to make the pilgrimage, and be resettled in some other part of the world (or more specifically, the Realm of Peace). The slave market at Taif, 40 miles outside Mecca, was not shut down until 1962, and only then under pressure from the International Chiristian/Jewish community that established things like the [[International Monetary Fund]] to manage world trade, so that the Saudi rule clique could represent themselves rather than be dominated by Western Imperial powers such as the British Empire or the United States.
:::This seemed to upset people like [[Osama bin Laden]], who feel the Saudi ruling clique has no legitimate title to being the Keepers of the Holy Places, and were only installed by this Western Chiristian and Jewish conspiracy against Islam (it is somewhat akin to having Muslims install their choice of the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ).
:::Bottomline, Islam condones slavery; and in fact, slavery has been a vital part of keeping social order in Islam for 1400 years. Only so-called "modernization", imported from the West, led to things like Abu Ghraib being built, and destroyed Islamic customs (one being, disposing of problem offenders in a commuinty to pilgrimage caravans headed for the slave market at Taif, rather that keeping them locked up locally).
:::Ahhh.... the march of progess. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:31, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I was meaning that there may be a better alternative than "Islamic countries". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::IMO, "Islam" works best. There's no dispute its a cultural of civilizational entity within a certain large geographical space. And "Islamic law" tends to prevail over local national governments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:17, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is that most people here do not think that "Islam" is an appropriate word to use here (even if technically correct), so the question then is which of several possible alternatives is best to use. It has been replaced with "Islamic countries", but that may not be the best alternative, and a different alternative term, such as "Islamic cultures" may be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

== Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history. ==

Isn't this the least noble aspect in American history? What aspect could be less noble than owning another man and his children? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: Killing unborn babies? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:27, 25 December 2007 (EST)

In all seriousness, since slavery is so prominently mentioned in the Bible, I believe that slavery should be federally sanctioned in the United States. The way that I interpret the saying, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" means that if you have the opportunity to advance in life, do it, because the ends will justify the means. Furthermore, don't think that your neighbor wouldn't trample over you if it gave him the chance to advance in life.

== The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832. ==

The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

What point is this sentence trying to convey?[[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist
: I believe it is that buying and selling of slaves was abolished in 1807, but you were allowed to retain ownership of existing slaves until 1832. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Analytical chemistry

2008-05-27T01:27:55Z

ComplexModulo: New page: This page should be deleted, it contributes HARDLY anything to the understanding of analytical chemistry.

This page should be deleted, it contributes HARDLY anything to the understanding of analytical chemistry.

Talk:Set theory

2008-05-27T00:36:48Z

ComplexModulo: New page: This site should contain more information on set theory. A discussion of the symbols for "contained," and "properly contained" should be included, as well as a discussion of power sets and...

This site should contain more information on set theory. A discussion of the symbols for "contained," and "properly contained" should be included, as well as a discussion of power sets and the empty set. Also, it seems slightly blasphemous to state that most theories in mathematics are incomplete. The nature of mathematics is that new and interesting topics are always being analyzed and discussed, and to say that mathematics consists mostly of incomplete theories makes it sound less important than it really is. For instance, even though Christianity is widely accepted, it is still being analyzed and developed, as theologians continue to interpret the messages of the Bible and its related texts. However, saying that the study of Christianity is incomplete sounds about as wrong as saying that many theories in Mathematics are incomplete.

Talk:Family Guy

2008-05-27T00:29:44Z

ComplexModulo:

Information about who does drugs and who has prostituted themselves and who has slept with whom in a ''cartoon'' is ''not'' appropriate for this encyclopedia. In addition, I you reverted to a version which is full of redundancies and run-on sentences. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:Do we even need a list of all the characters? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::I would argue that it doesn't contribute a whole lot. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Do we even need an article on this? Does it satisfy [[CP:NOTE]]? uh-oh. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:31, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have no idea what CP Note is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:52, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is our standard for notability, which I guess doesn't exist. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:05, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Here is a list of characters you need to add:

Joe Swanson - Joe is Peter's paraplegic friend, and is often made fun of for being so.

Cleveland Brown - Cleveland is Peter's neighbor, and portrays a typical African American male.

Herbert - Herbert is Peter's neighbor, and is known for being a pedophile. For some reason, he has not yet been taken to jail.

Mort Goldman - Mort is Peter's pharmacist, and is frequently portrayed as a typical member of the Jewish community, most notably his tendency to whine and complain.

Talk:Mathematics

2008-05-27T00:22:01Z

ComplexModulo:

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testiment to the intelligence of this fine, fine website.

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree, conservapedia is good because it doesn't overflow you with information. Now, if we could just tell that to the writers of the homosexuality, dinosaur, evolution, and atheism pages pages...