Talk:Family values

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Family and relationships
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of family and relationships articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-04. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Family values: A set of guidelines for defining the structure of a family and the roles of its members within society. Worp 08:56 09 July 2006

Before you put in your $64 million worth of thought, the very first thing to do is define the term; that is to say, you agree on what you are talking about in general - before you put your bias to it. What I have written is somewhat a dictionary definition. What has happened is that many people have written on it and discussed it and revised it and not one is talking about the same thing! Worp 09:07 09 July 2006


how bout the annual(?) rock festival tour?

Good point! That article is at Family Values Tour, but it wasn't linked from this article. I added a link so that people can find it from here. If you have anything to add about the tour, feel free to edit its page. Rhobite 13:52, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Ah! nice diversion. This topic needs a bit of R 'n' R. :) -- Quinobi 17:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Queer families[edit]

"...other types of families, such as single-parent families and queer families." The phrase "queer families" is a good target for the PC-police, but, more importantly, the term itself is a bit vague--what constitutes a "queer family"? Perhaps the phrase is more popularly used than I thought; if so, perhaps it should have its own article. --- Erik Carson 17:19, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

Queer family is a bad term. However this article should include information on gay families. Some same-sex couples do choose to raise children and have families just like anybody else. In the current state of the article it defines these same-sex headed families against family values, which is highly inaccurate, not to mention stereotypical. Not everyone is alike, whether you are gay or straight we are all unique from one another. After all gay Republicans do exist; look at Mary Cheney for example. --- Apollomelos 16:41, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
Appolomelos, the article has been rewritten since the comment you replied to was posted. If you want to add detailed, attributed material on how gays react to "family values" rhetoric, that would be wonderful. Gazpacho 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'll draft something up in word. However since you seem to watch this page quite a bit and have researched more than I have, let me know if you have any suggestions when I post it. Any added input would be helpful. Thanks. Apollomelos
The phrase "queer families" reflects a shift in GLBT and third-wave feminism towards the use of the word "queer" to reflect any number of sexual orientations or self-definitions rather than pigeonholing people into narrow categories like "straight", "gay", etc. There's a good deal of literature on queer theory (cf. Judith Butler) and it's worth looking into. Smitty

Splitting conservative and liberal definitions[edit]

I think that the current organization of the article, in which there is an argumentative "conservative stance" section followed by a "liberal stance" section is bad and un-encyclopedic. I've re-written it in a way I think is much better. COGDEN 19:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, you've made the article many times better. Some may see it as being biased against conservatives, we'll see what happens. Rhobite 20:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Yes it's a bit better but I still think a difinite statement based in 'pure neutrality' should go at the top. I added the Category:Sociology. Maybe linking this to the Computational sociology article is in order. It links here. Quinobi 12:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is that the current lead sentence is NPOV, but go right ahead if you think it needs improvement. Rhobite 13:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


How many times is my definition going to be changed if favour of some bias left wing bs. The bullet point which says in conservative households according to 'family values' the woman is nearly always the 'homemaker' is misleading rubbish, this should be changed to say that this organisation is sometimes but certainly not always the case.

There's plenty of right-wing "biased bs" and "misleading rubbish" to be had, so might I suggest you watch your tone? If you can't handle yourself civilly towards people with whom you disagree I'd encourage you to find topics to discuss which are less likely to enrage you when they aren't as perfectly accurate as you'd like them to be. It's called a "discussion" page, after all, not a "shout cuss words when you don't get your way" page.
That said, you have a point. Many conservative "Family Values" families nowadays have two working parents. They'd be stupid not to, unless the husband is raking in an absolute fortune by himself. I've even been aquainted with a very conservative family who defied tradition by having the mother working as a senior executive for a Fortune 500 firm and the father who stayed home and kept an eye on the kids. I, then, will add my vote to changing the bullet point to a more accurate description of the concept. Lekoman 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the list is prefaced with "some combination of the following." Each item is a principle that many conservatives, but not all of them, associate with "family values." Gazpacho 01:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to balance out the Conservative POV with the liberals and democratic party POV with respect to family values. Can we discuss this here before reverting back? I want to make this nuteral. 1freethinker


is it just me, or is this article written as to give the impression that family values is right and acceptable? Pellaken 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the article does a good job of being NPOV. It states what the people who use the phrase "family values" mean by the phrase, and states what some others think of "family values". Rick Norwood 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Should this link be removed[edit]

  • http:// Traditional Christian Family Values

This link goes to a site that describes the "supposed" evils that Traditional Christian Family Values have caused. The person might have some valid points but there is a lot of guilt by association, is misleading on some points, takes quotes from the bible out of context (whether some Christians do too...thats another issue).

I say remove this link..... or at least add some discription to it saying what the link is really discussing.... 1freethinker

Add some comments, why not. Charles Matthews 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the site again, and found it nothing more than anti-christian propaganda, and does not provide any value, so I am going to delete the link... anyone wants it back please put your discussions here first.


Restore the Link... I read it and its balanced and extremely truthful. I use to be in the Fundamentalist movement before I joined a Mainline Christian Church and I know what the author is talking about. [[user:MagnumSerpentine}} 8-26-06

family values[edit]

what are the traditional family values? what does causes problems in the structure of morden family?

The phrase "family values", as it is currently used, has little to do with either families or values. As the article notes, it is a political buzzword, which means nothing more than "vote for my candidate". In this respect, it is a synonym for "motherhood, the flag, and apple pie". Rick Norwood 19:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion its a buzz word started by Christian Reconstructionist as a way to force other Republicans to get in line with the Family Rights groups user:MagnumSerpentine 8-26-06


"Typically, "family values" is employed as a code word to imply a social position that firmly reinforces conventional gender roles, and opposes abortion, pornography, extra-marital sex, and the influence of media in profanity, violence, and sexuality. Often this ideology also opposes feminism, contraception, cohabitation, and divorce. It also generally opposes the extension of rights and privileges to families composed of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons, epitomized in the stance against same-sex marriage."

"Proponents of "family values" consider the family to be an anthropological reality upon which civilizations and societies are built. As such, the family unit is seen as a static (and ideal) convention, but not an arbitrary one. Typically, "family values" is meant to express opposition to perceived threats to the integrity of the family, including abortion, pornography, extra-marital sex, and the influence of media in profanity, violence, and sexuality. The term is often used to include opposition to feminism, secularism, contraception, cohabitation, divorce, and same-sex marriage."

Both of these paragraphs are biased, in opposite directions. The lower of the two proposed paragraphs also suggests that "anthropology" has discovered that all families are the same, when actually the opposite is the case. I'm going to try to capture the way the phrase is actually used. Rick Norwood 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph makes no such claim. It specifically characterizes any claims as subjective. "Proponents of family values consider the family to be an anthropological reality". You need to at least explain their POV, you can't just dump on it like the first paragraph and your change does.
Typically, "family values" is employed as a code word to imply a social position that supports conventional gender roles and the position of the husband as the head of the family, while opposing abortion, pornography, and pre-marital sex. In general, those who support this position call for censorship of profanity and sexuality in the media, and for the use of the public schools and the courts to support the Christian religion, taboos against nudity, and abstinence-only sex education. Often this ideology also opposes feminism, contraception, cohabitation, divorce, and equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered persons.
Saying that it is a "code word" is POV. Is "gay" a "code word"? "Supporting conventional gender roles and the position of the husband as head of the family" is really loaded. Which organizations have advocated this? What legislation have they advanced to this effect? There's nothing about "conventional gender roles" from the mainstream pro-family groups like Focus on the Family or Family Research Council. "Censorship" is a loaded term; from what I can tell it is also false -- they call for ratings and regulation and whatnot. "The use of public schools and the courts to support the Christian religion"? That is massive POV. How about "protecting public expressions of Christian faith"? "Taboo" is a loaded term. Calling "family values" an ideology unto itself seems simply inaccurate. Also, certainly not all pro-family folks "oppose...contraception". Handing it out in schools, maybe. But not for adults. "Equal rights" is a loaded term that assumes the very thing that is up for debate in terms of homosexuality. You characterized the whole thing negatively in terms of what "family values" opposes; you need to craft an explanation of what "family values" supports. --Hyphen5 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes it a code word is that it looks innocuous on the surface but actually has a more specific and controversial meaning to those it's aimed at. I value families, so family values sound great to me. However, I'm not a bigot, and it turns out that "family values" is a code word for a variety of conservative bigotries. I am reverting your attempt at whitewashing and will continue to do so as needed. Alienus 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you are proving my point. "Code word" suggests that "family values" is a cloak for bigotry. I could easily claim that the term "gay", which used to mean "happy", is a "code word" for sexual debauchery and an anti-family agenda. But that would be POV, wouldn't it? Just like your attempt here with "family values" is highly suggestive of POV. What is amazing to me is that you seem to think that your opinions are facts -- as if you can fulminate about "reproductive rights" and "conservative bigotries" and that's supposed to be something that other editors respect. This is an encyclopedia; it is not a battle ground for your culture war. --Hyphen5 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Projection is an interesting psychological phenomenon, but not much of an argument. Stop talking about me and start talking about the content. In particular, start talking about how you're going to back down and compromise. Alienus 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed attempt at a compromise[edit]

Looks like my attempt at a compromise is unacceptable.

Now, please note a few facts. 1) The article says "buzz word" not "code word".

Well, it doesn't say "code word" if you read my version, but Alienus keeps reverting it. In his version the second paragraph calls "family values" a "code word". I'm actually fine with "buzz word"; it's not as POV as "code word", which suggests something sinister. --Hyphen5 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2) I have never heard anyone on either side claim that "anthropologists" support family values, so unless a source can be offered, that is original research.

Well, don't misconstrue what I said. I said family values supporters see the family unit itself as an anthropological reality -- not a legal convention. It's a claim about the nature of the family, I'm not saying that they think all "anthropologists support family values". In any event, here are some sources:

In fact, some 150 years of systematic inquiry by anthropologists leaves little doubt that heterosexual marriage is found in nearly every human society and almost always as a pivotal institution.

— Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Debate Goes Multicultural

This is not my original observation. Rather, this is the classic definition of marriage long used by cultural anthropologists to explicate this institution: namely, men and women cooperate economically in order to produce and rear children.

Dr. Allan C. Carlson, Marriage on Trial

History, nature, social science, anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous support of traditional marriage as it has always been understood: a lifelong union of male and female for the purpose of creating stable families.

Focus on the Family, Position Statement on Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

Family Research Council, What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?

But what every known human society calls marriage shares certain basic, recognizable features, including most especially the privileges accorded to the reproductive couple in order to protect both the interests of children and the interests of the society. As Kingsley Davis sums up the anthropological impulse of marriage: “The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval . . . of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing offspring.”

Maggie Gallagher, What is Marriage For?, p. 9
Additionally, the conservative writer Stanley Kurtz is himself an anthropologist. --Hyphen5 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As to what family values are, I think the family values side of the issue should have the final say on that. Here is a list from my proposed compromise:


  • conventional gender roles
  • the husband as the head of the family
  • censorship of profanity and sexuality in the media
  • use of the public schools to support the Christian religion (school prayer)
  • the use of the courts to support the Christian religion (Ten Commandments) (should this include support of the Jewish religion -- I'm not sure, but I have never heard of a Jew supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in courts)
  • abstinence-only sex education
These are suggestive of a hostile POV. "Conventional gender roles", "husband as the head of the family": do family values advocates necessarily support these things? Can you provide sources for this? What legislation have they advanced that furthers this goal? Those seem awfully like loaded terms if you ask me. Also "use of the public schools/courts to support the Christian religion" is loaded and inaccurate. They view themselves as defending the public expression of Christianity. You act like they're asking the courts to prop up their religion by tax subsidies or something. Also, "censorship" is a loaded term and I don't think you'll seem them use it. And I think you'll hardly see them call for it. They want regulation/rating systems/etc. --Hyphen5 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A literal reading of what some of the strong self-identified supporters of traditional family values, such as Anaheim, California-based Traditional Values Coalition say is that they seek to practice their constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion in all areas of their lives. However, in reading that organization's web site, what they imply by exercising their rights in the United States of America is to deny the same constitionally protected rights of almost anyone who does not hold to their theocratic-centered goal of instituting a God-centered government as they hold is their commandment in The Bible.

The web site of Theocracy Watch points out that the theocracy of the Israelites grew into the Monarchy of both David and Solomon. The founding fathers, of whom some are indisputably Deists -- not Christians -- knew well their religious history of Europe. That is explicitly the reason they wrote into the Constitution both the guarantee of the freedom of exercise of any religion as well as the explicit prohibition against the government's right to ban any religious practices ever.

So well many who do not share the particular world view of so-called born-again, fundamentalist, theocratic, and most importantly here, potlitically active in the name of God Christians, no one who disagrees with them would seek to deny their rights to say or believe anything they hold as truth. Can the same be said of them in relationship to their view of those whom they see as their opponents.


  • abortion
  • pornography
  • pre-marital sex
  • nudity
Family values advocates aren't against nudity. They'd never have any children if they were! I think you capture what you mean by "nudity" within the "pornography" bullet. --Hyphen5 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Not so much. Pornography is specific to sexual images, nudity is simply bare skin. Would you call a cultural documentary showing topless tribal women pornography? -- Casalen 13 April, 2006

Often (but not always) oppose:

  • feminism
  • contraception
  • cohabitation
  • divorce
  • equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered persons.
I would add secularism. But "equal rights for gays..." is loaded. Saying that they oppose "equal rights" is POV, as it assumes the very thing that is being debated (i.e., whether gays have sufficient rights protections under equal protection, whether same-sex marriage is a matter of "equal rights" at all, etc.). --Hyphen5 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Will those who support "family values" please tell us what should be added to and what should be deleted from the lists above? Rick Norwood 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "buzz word" is better than "code word".
On the other hand, your quotes do not support at all the use of the adjective "anthropological", because anthropology shows that family structures vary widely from culture to culture, and the American marriage is far from the mainstream. For example, in most cultures a woman is married by age fifteen. In most cultures marriage is decided by the parents, not by the people getting married. Polygamy is commonplace.
Beg your pardon, I never claimed that family values advocates are right to claim that anthropology supports them. If you go back and read what I said, all I'm trying to put in the article is the fact that they do claim that, as the above quotations demonstrate. --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I asked you which items on the list you think "family values" supports. Evidently you would take "conventional gender roles" and "man as head of the family" off the list. Certainly, the "million man march" supported the latter, as do those who quote Saint Paul, "Wives obey your husbands, husbands be kind to your wives." Notice that at his point I have not mentioned legislation, only what is meant by "family values" by the people who use that phrase. But, evidently you are ok if "Desmond stays at home and does his pretty face and in the evening they both sing out with the band." Ok by me.
The Million Man March had nothing to do with "family values". Read our article about it. St. Paul also said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Besides, quoting St. Paul to justify a claim about pro-family folks is sort of silly. We're talking about now, not 2000 years ago. So I don't believe you've shown any evidence, and I still think it is inaccurate to claim, that pro-family folks necessarily support "conventional gender roles" and the "man as head of the family". --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand "Also "use of the public schools/courts to support the Christian religion" is loaded and inaccurate. They view themselves as defending the public expression of Christianity." No, the public expression of Christianity is everywhere you look. The question is using the schools and the courts to support Christianity. I think most people consider issues like "school prayer" and the display of the Ten Commandments in court to come under "family values". Do you disagree?
Yes, I do disagree. If you go to Europe, there are crucifixes in public schools, alongside public highways -- they're everywhere. Europeans aren't uncomfortable with that kind of expression like Americans are. The pro-family folks want to protect such cultural expressions of the locally dominant religion (Christianity) from, as you would say, "censorship". They are not calling for schools and courts to "support" them in their religious faith, as your wording suggests. It's not only in courts that pro-family folks want the Ten Commandments; and it's not only in schools that they want prayer. So I think your wording is inaccurate. --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"Censorship" is what "regulation" of speech and art is called. It's a word. Calling it something else won't make it any less censorship.
Yes, "censorship" may be technically correct but it is a loaded term, and has a negative POV connotation. Are libel and slander laws "censorship"? I guess they are, under your definition, but it would be biased to call it that in an encyclopedia. --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Non-sexual nudity -- nude swimming, breast feeding in public, and so on -- is opposed by many groups who describe this as a "family value". See the Wikipedia article on nudity for one example.
I've never heard of a family values group coming out against skinny dipping or breast feeding in public. Can you cite some sources on that claim? --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Try suggesting a local beach become 'clothing optional' and find out who the first and most vocal opponenets are going to be - I will wager 9 out of 10 times it will be The 'Family Values' crowd
So, what do we agree upon? Non-sexual nudity is ok, non-traditional gender roles are ok, homosexuals can have equal rights as long as they don't marry.
I'm not clear where we are on school prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments.
I don't understand what you're saying. I think we very much disagree on these things as an editorial matter, don't we? Isn't that what we're debating about? --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And we agree that people use "family values" to include being in favor of abstinence-only sex education and opposed to homosexual marriage, abortion, pornography, and pre-marital sex, and sometimes opposition to feminism, contraception, cohabitation, and divorce.
Does this list sound NPOV to you? Rick Norwood 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, this list looks fine to me. --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rick, take a look at code word and tell me what you think. My argument is that "family values" is "sounds much more acceptable to an average listener" than the full meaning that you've explicated above. Moreover, conservatives are clearly under no illusion about what the term refers to, showing that it is used to "evoke a pre-determined meaning to certain listeners". I think we need to call this what it is. If you still disagree, how about I come up with citations showing that relevant reliable sources consider "family values" to be a code word? Alienus 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the use of "family values" as a code word, but am willing to accept "buzz word" in the spirit of compromise. Rick Norwood 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not subject to compromise. Moreover, there is no shortage of citations. Take a look at these:

Lots more out there! Alienus 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an impressive list. Of course, "family values" is used both as a code word (meaning, variously, traditional families, Chirstian families, White families, upper class families, families where the woman stays barefoot and pregers, etc). And it is also used as a buzz word, that is, as a phrase with no meaning at all, but designed to let people know you are on their side. And the word is actually used, on a few rare occasions, to actually mean what it says, that is, values that are good for families (love, acceptance, boundaries, etc.). As for which word the article should use, either is ok by me. Rick Norwood 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

New section, just because the old one was getting too long.[edit]

Hyphen5 wrote: Beg your pardon, I never claimed that family values advocates are right to claim that anthropology supports them. If you go back and read what I said, all I'm trying to put in the article is the fact that they do claim that, as the above quotations demonstrate. --Hyphen5 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, your quotes do not back up your claim. They all talk about "marraige" but none of them mention the "family values" kind of marriage.
Look, you said: "I have never heard anyone on either side claim that 'anthropologists' support family values, so unless a source can be offered, that is original research." I replied that I didn't say that anthropologists support family values; rather, I said that "family values" folks understand marriage to be anthropological in nature. I gave you quotes to substantiate that, and prove to you that it was not original research. These are quotes from pro-family organizations that represent the constituency that is the very subject of this article. How can you say that those quotes are not talking about a "family values kind of marriage"? What does that phrase even mean, if not that kind of marriage that pro-family groups would support? --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5 wrote: The Million Man March had nothing to do with "family values".

You come dangerously close to substantiating the claim that "family values" is a code word for "white values".
Rick, give me a break. Three things: (1) There has been no claim made on this page that "family values is a code word for white values". (2) "Family values" does not appear once in our article Million Man March. The closest thing is a push by black organizations to promote adoption of black children by blacks to prevent them from being adopted by whites. This has everything to do with racial purity, but nothing to do with family values. (3) Why are we even debating this? It has nothing to do with anything. --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5 wrote: If you go to Europe, there are crucifixes in public schools, alongside public highways -- they're everywhere.

In most of Europe -- France is an exception -- people pay taxes to support the Church. Do you think Americans should pay taxes to support the Church. I believe you said you do not. So, let's stick to America, in which we do not have a state religion.
We aren't debating policy here. Why does nobody understand that. Neither my nor your opinion on the separation of Church and state matters. What matters is trying to get correct and NPOV information into this article. I was using the European crucifixes as an example of natural, cultural expression of religion that pro-family folks want to protect. You can't imply, as the article does, that "family values" is a code word for, inter alia, establishing a theocracy. --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5 wrote: The pro-family folks want to protect such cultural expressions of the locally dominant religion (Christianity) from, as you would say, "censorship".

There is no censorship of the dominant religion. It is everywhere. You mention crosses along the highway. I cannot drive from one end of town to the other with seeing dozens of crosses. Which is fine. But there certainly is not any censorship.
You said: "'Censorship' is what 'regulation' of speech and art is called. It's a word. Calling it something else won't make it any less censorship." The crackdown on the word "Christmas" in public schools and other government institutions is censorship under your definition, and it is precisely what pro-family groups are fighting against. They don't want state "support" for Christianity; they want the state to allow individuals to express their Christianity, even on public property. These days, hardly anyone supports mandatory "school prayer"; all the big fights are over voluntary, student-led prayer in school. --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5 wrote: They are not calling for schools and courts to "support" them in their religious faith, as your wording suggests. It's not only in courts that pro-family folks want the Ten Commandments; and it's not only in schools that they want prayer. So I think your wording is inaccurate.

They are exactly calling for the schools and courts to support them in pushing their religious faith on people who may not share it. You also slip in a suggestion that people cannot pray in the public schools. I teach in a public university, and I pray there every day. There is no law against prayer in the public schools.
See my response above. There are laws (in the form of case law) against student-led voluntary prayer at school functions. A student may not lead an opening prayer at a football game, for example. That was a Supreme Court case. You can't say that support for such a voluntary, student-led prayer amounts to wanting the state to "support" their religion. It certainly does not amount to "pushing their religious faith on people who may not share it". --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5 wrote: Yes, "censorship" may be technically correct but it is a loaded term, and has a negative POV connotation. Are libel and slander laws "censorship"? I guess they are, under your definition, but it would be biased to call it that in an encyclopedia.

Censorship is censorship. Avoid weasel words.
You are being inconsistent. You have this hugely broad view of censorship, but you refuse to apply it to secular attempts to take "Christmas" and Ten Commandments and prayer out of schools and other government institutions. --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen5 wrote: I've never heard of a family values group coming out against skinny dipping or breast feeding in public. Can you cite some sources on that claim?

I already did. See the Wikipedia article on nudism for links.
Nudism is quite a different thing from Nudity. If you want to say that pro-family groups oppose nudism, that's fine. But you can't say that they oppose any and all "nudity". --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote: I'm not clear where we are on school prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments. Hyphen 5 replied: I don't understand what you're saying. I think we very much disagree on these things as an editorial matter, don't we? Isn't that what we're debating about.

Yes, and I understand your position better, now. "Family values" does imply support of public school prayer and the Ten Commandments not only in courthouses but on other public lands as well.

Hyphen 5 and I agree that "people use "family values" to include being in favor of abstinence-only sex education and opposed to homosexual marriage, abortion, pornography, and pre-marital sex, and sometimes opposition to feminism, contraception, cohabitation, and divorce." Is this a consensus? Rick Norwood 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. What about adding secularism though? --Hyphen5 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I touched off a dispute here. Last time I worked on the article there was an appreciation that the positions of some proponents of FV should not be attributed to all of them. Gazpacho 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point, which I tried to address by breaking off what I thought were beliefs less generally held, such as opposition to feminism. Are there other items on the list you think should be separated from the "main" items? Rick Norwood 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with saying that conservative groups "variously" support this and that. Gazpacho 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Rick Norwood 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't read all of the above debate (writing a paper, no time!), so I openly confess that I may be either touching on something that has already been stated or disputed. However I did want to throw my two cents in and say that this article fell short of my expectations because I felt it dealt a lot with the political use of the term "family values" and, since I was looking at it from a Sociology subdivision of Wikipedia, I was hoping for more of a definition of the term and the different ways those are established. The ways that family values are established is something that's certainly been studied, and if anyone would be able to contribute anything that would encompass the ways family values are taught in various cultures I think it would improve the article. It would certainly render the article more neutral.

I did, however, think the perspective on what "family values" means in America was interesting. Biased, but interesting. But then, if you have values at all, it becomes incredibly difficult to write without bias about the values in your own culture, both those that you do and do not subscribe to.


I think you will find what you are looking for in the article family. Rick Norwood 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposing Feminism?!?!?![edit]

I am unsure whether or not my current version will be kept online after I log of, because Alienus has a habit of reverting good faithed edits out of hand, without even an explanation. So I will do a quick copy and paste from the which I had inserted into the article. Note this text hasn't been altered from its original version so it may contain spelling errors.

I'm not sure that I'd say that this group opposes feminism, because there are many things incorperated into the feminist cause. I hardly think that they would say that a women doesn't have the right to vote, or own land for example. I do conceed though that they believe that the family is center to society and it would be benificial if women WITH CHILDREN stayed at home to raise them (note I hardly think that they oppose single women from working to support themselves)

Chooserr 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.
I revert a lot of vandalism out of hand, and I revert a lot of bad change with explanations. In my experience, you make many bad changes, so I've reverted you many times. Please understand that this is content disagreement, not anything personal.
Oddly enough, I note that you reverted four of my changes in quick succession, and none with good reason. I don't know if this qualifies as wikistalking yet, but if it continues, I'm sure I can find an admin who will block you for it. Cut it out.
In any case, there is no doubt whatsoever that feminism conflicts with family values. I can trivially find numerous reliable sources that support this, such as
If you wish to claim otherwise, you're going to have to do a whole lot of research, and even then, the most you can hope for is a footnote to the effect that some people define familiy values in a way that doesn't conflct with feminism. In the meantime, I will disallow any attempt by you to remove feminism from the list of things that are opposed by family values. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Alienus, funny how someone who demands "good faith" tends to accuse another of wikistalkling. We edit on similar articles...get used to it.
My main concern however is not a personal one. It is simply that I don't feel feminism belongs here. You haven't justified it being kept in any way so it should be removed until it IS sourced reliably, which shouldn't be a problem, especially since you're the one with "numerous reliable sources that support this" (note if this is true it's interesting that you supplied a plain text, possibly student launched, multiple extensions site instead of something that actually is reliable.) Chooserr 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've provided citations, you're provided opinion. Opinion loses. Al 03:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The citation is practically irrelevant. The inclusion of feminism here is POV, stereotypical, and innacurate, for several reasons. For instance many feminists stand together with the proponants of family values against pornography, with both groups considering this degrading to women. Some feminists are pro-life/anti-abortion. And some (not all) of the groups that support family values today are among the historical proponents of equality for women. So it depends on your definition of feminism; it depends on which feminist groups referenced and it depends on which family values proponants reference. Pollinator 04:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've demonstrated, this is false, therefore your POV insertion will be reverted. "Family values" means women barefoot and pregnant, which is the opposite of feminism. Al 04:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, just because a woman is a home maker doesn't mean that she's "barefoot and pregnant" (a mighty POV term if you ask me), so if you attempt to revert Pollinator's good faith'd edits based on your lone possibly student lauched site I'll have to revert your contribution (I'll be a little more courteous than you were to Pollinator and not use words like "POV insertion" or "vandalism" as you like to call anything you don't agree with). Chooserr 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that women must be "homemakers" is in opposition to feminism. Please don't bother edit-warring against me; you'll lose. That's because my view is supported by the consensus. Al 05:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man again, Alienus. Family values restores the status of women who choose to be homemakers, but no one says they "must" be homemakers. And your attitude doesn't need to be combative. Pollinator 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Alienus, your phrase "you'll lose" makes wikipedia seem more of a game than an encyclopedia. I don't want to get into edit wars with you, just keep the actual consensus, for I see that Rick at least is willing to compromise on this issue, and Pollinator has a view similar to mine (that many things are incorperated into the feminist cause). Chooserr 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

godawful 2nd paragraph[edit]

This text was nothing but a bunch of contentious claims and stereotypes without source, save one that doesn't even mention christianity. And by the way your source directly contradicts your claims about what views are "widespread".

Typically, the term refers to Christian values as put forth by some groups of American Christians who see their religion as the source of morality and consider the nuclear family to be an essential element in society. These groups variously oppose abortion, pornography, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, some aspects of feminism, cohabitation, divorce, and depictions of nudity, sexuality and profanity in the media. Some conservative family values advocates believe the government should explicitly endorse Christian morality, for example by displaying the Ten Commandments or allowing teachers to conduct prayers in public schools. The view of the United States as a "Christian nation" is widespread among conservative family values proponents.

Plus its supposed to be about the term not other stereotypiucal crap the same specimens also think that make liberals mad, like the ten commandments or prayers in public schools. And btw what the hell is religion if not a source of morality? A source of income? And what kind of hippie twit believes in certain morals but doesn't want the govt to endorse their morals? Hey I think murder is immoral but wouldn't want to impose my personal beliefs on the rest of you so happy killin'.

I am not sure what your point is, here. At first, you seem to be saying that these views are not widespread. Then you seem to be saying that these views are correct. Are you saying that these are views that most people do not hold, but which you do hold?
You also seem to say that either all morality should be written into law or no morality should be written into law. Anyone who does not want a law against pornography must also not want a law against murder. That is the "all or none" fallacy. Rick Norwood 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My point there was that people who don't want laws based on Christian morality still want laws based on morality--just their own morality.

Personally I don't know what most people think. I thought that survey was much more interesting than the stereotypes that were there. 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the survey, also. Can you provide a reference for it? Rick Norwood 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference was right there in the paragraph until you moved it...

I looked through your reference and didn't find the New York Times data. Maybe I've got the references confused...if so, please restore the reference, preferably a link to the article itself. Rick Norwood 13:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Family Values-twisted[edit]

Surely outcasting, excluding, insulting, attacking, seperating and putting down another human (accross the street, on tv, or one of your own gay kids) is a bad family value to have, which makes it sort of a catch-22. No wait, not a catch-22, I mean it makes it common sense not to attack your own kind JayKeaton 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While I respect what you say, this article needs to, and does, present both the liberal and conservative view of family values, and allows the reader to make up their own mind. Rick Norwood 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, the article is about percieved family values, not actual family values. Percieved and accepted family values could be to keep your children away from black people and that would make it a "family value"... anyway it's all good, I wont be editing this page, never planned to actually JayKeaton 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"You've got to be taught, before it's too late
Before you are six, or seven. or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught." Rick Norwood 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

what family values stand for[edit]

It seems like the long list of what "family values" is supposed to include in its usual sense can be condensed down into two things:

1. married, monogamous procreation 2. distinct and traditional gender roles Markwiki 00:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good try, but does not include the various people who object to sex unrelated to procreation, to pornography for example. Also, it doesn't cover the various pro-censorship groups, who keep most of our films (at least those that play at the multiplex) as interesting as luke-warm coffee.

Rick Norwood 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POV issues in artcle[edit]

All positions in the affirmative should be written from the affirmative standpoint. As such, the current section on republican family values is not written that way. In addition, these are not referenced--which brings me to the next question. Who compliled this list? Specific points:

Support for marriage as a lasting bond between one man and one woman and support for laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage
"constitutional amendment" is a policy and not a value. This article identifies "values".
Family organization which has the husband as head of the household and the wife primarily as homemaker
who states this is a "value"? Is it a common value?
Support for public education and popular media that promote (or at least act compatibly with) the current view of traditional Christian moralit
who stated this one? I presume this is a reference to the teaching of creationism. What percentage of christians support creationism teaching. "things" is not specific enough.
Support for two-parent families as opposed to single parent families
fair enough
Parental responsibility for and control over their children's education
okay--didn't know that this was a "family value." I doubt that anyone would disagree with a parental responsibility. I don't know what "control" means.
Discipline of children at the discretion of the parents, sometimes including corporal punishment
Although I agree with "spanking" there are limits to which the "discretion of the parents" does not seem to limit. And how is this a "family value."
Rejection of homosexuality as a natural sexual orientation, and rejection of behavior or appearance inconsistent with traditional gender roles.
This may be true. But how is this a family value? The "value" might be "traditional gender roles." Just like you could write that republicans "reject murder" and "genocide" or some other bizarre concept. The question is "what is the value" and in the above case, the "rejection of murder" would be a classified under support for "traditional concepts of morality" such as written by number 7 on the ten commandements "thou shalt no murder" ("thou shalt not kill" is not the real translation, for those that don't know)
Rejection of abortion, and sometimes contraception as well
Again, this may be true for a certain facet of society, but it is not a value as written in the affirmative. This may be a position that religious conservatives oppose, but it is not a value. The value would be the sanctity of life. Rejection of contraception??? Huh? that may be a position associated with the catholic church, again, what is the "value."

I'll make some edits in the affirmative, in line with wikipedia NPOV guidelines. ED MD 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

More POV issues[edit]

the democratic "family values" are not values. They are policies that they support:

Universal health care--is a policy (potentially a value, but I don;t think that it is perceived this way) Unemployment insurance--definitely a policy Childcare for working parents--again a policy Public education-- as opposed to private eduction??? Living wage--again another policy Opposition to privatizing Social Security--surely a policy. how is this a value??? Progressive taxation--are people saying that the democratic position is valuation of taxation??? Yikes!!!

This is nowhere near a list a "values". This is simply a list of feel good policies. ED MD 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point in this and in the above -- the article needs to distinguish between values: homosexual marriage is wrong or sick people should be taken care of by the government and policies: we need to ammend the constitution or we need universal health care. I like most of your recent edit but you (or some other editor) stray from values to policy in "Support of policies that encourage adoption over abortion". I will attempt a minor rewrite. Also, I'll look up the party platforms, see what they say, and provide references. Rick Norwood 12:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Party platforms[edit]

For the sections on Republican and Democratic values I looked up the party platforms. These sections should reflect the values actually advocated by the two parties. Rick Norwood 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick: Many of these are not values--there are selective position pieces. Listed below:

The value of abstinence to prevent unwanted pregnancy: the support abstinence over promiscuity is not a value.

The value of an unborn child's right to life: true--however, the value is the sanctity of life, and as such they value adoption over abortion.

The value of abstinence to prevent AIDS: This is not a value.

The value of an army with no homosexuals: POV--please. The don't ask don't tell policy is from Clinton and regulates behavior.

The value of marriage and of children being raised in family with both a mother and a father. straight forward

The value of capital punishment: capital punishment in and of itself is not the value. The belief is crime should be punished, and the value is moral behavior

The value of jailing drug users: are we not getting too POV here? (should someone write in the democratic party: the value of not working and receiving government support???)

The value of deporting illegal immigrants: Again the value here is abbiding by the laws

The value of displaying the ten commandments in courtrooms: not a value at all.

The value of private, not public, health care: this is an efficiency question--sheesh. Do you relly believe what you write???

The value of opposition to assisted suicide: see the first one

The value of faith-based welfare: Huh? I have never even heard of this before. Are making things up???

The value of allowing corporations to set their own polution standards: another POV.

The value of gun ownership: yikes its all POV.

Rick do you want to write something that will last the test of time, or are you intent on pushing your POV? ED MD 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is your section on democratic values:

  • The value of a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child
  • The value of affirmative action to redress discrimination
  • The value of the war on drugs
  • The value of education
  • The value of clean air and water
  • The value of conservation
  • The value of the family
  • The value of government support for health care
  • The value of taxation based on an ability to pay
  • The value of science
  • The value of a living wage

These are pretty much policies. Putting "the value of" in front of a phrase does not mak it a value. I think we need outside support before any changes are made. Like I said above. I could simply write that democrats "value laziness by the redistribution of wealth to those that don't work." Rick you really need to take a step back and think about it from the other perspective. Don't hide behide your belief that anything does in wikipedia since you can add it and it may potnetially be your belief. Look at it from the perspective that there are many more people like me who will visit this page in the years to come and making such blatant POV edits will never survive. ED MD 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but you seem to be saying that the Republican Party platform is POV. Well, of course it is point of view, but it is the official Republican point of view. Frankly, I was surprised by what I read. Republicans are supposed to favor a strict construction of the Constitution, and I do not recall anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the right to get involved in a citizen's love life or medical problems. I suspect you agree and dislike the "big brother" aspects of the Republican Party. But the Republicans put them in the platform, I didn't. If this article is to have a section on the values of the Republicans and Democratics, then their platforms are the place to find out what they stand for.
You could, for example, only write that democrats "value laziness by the redistribution of wealth to those that don't work" if that was in the Democratic Party platform. It isn't.
You made a good point, above, about the difference between a value and a policy. Sexual abstinence is a value. Laws regulating sexuality are policy. And so on. Rick Norwood 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is on "family values" and not on the political platform. I would argue that we whould stick to "family values" and an attempt to define them. also writing an "army with no homosexuals" is a distortion and a blatant attempt at being POV. ED MD 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the quote, from the 2004 Republican Party platform: "We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

I am willing to work with you on this, but that certainly sounds like a value judgment to me. Rick Norwood 12:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "willingness to work" is simply a lie to revert back to your POV of the platfrom. The lines included in that list are selected out of a 92 page document, and the selections you take are out of context. Does it not look a little bizarre that the Republican "values" are the contentious points, and the Democratic "values" are all rosy. Please... Do yoiu plan on reverting this forever??? ...since trying to maintain it with your POV will never last. ED MD 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

platform versus value[edit]

Here is the Democratic Platform (supposively):

The value of a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child The value of affirmative action to redress discrimination The value of the war on drugs The value of education The value of clean air and water The value of conservation The value of the family The value of government support for health care The value of taxation based on an ability to pay The value of science The value of a living wage

How is the "war on drugs a value"? How is "government support of health care a value"? The value of science????? Huh? Rick, I know you teach high school science, but please... "the value of science" is laughable. Think of values as in terms of "moral" values. Everybody "values" clean air but how is it a "moral" value??? That is what family values is about. The term was invented to redress issues of declining, or perceived declines in morality in the US. Not because of polution... ED MD 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC) I'll leave the "platform" here for now. But it really doesn't belong here. the article should be focused on "family values" and supportive information can be used. But a nebulous defninition cannot be followed by a bait and swtich and turn it into a "platform" argument, espectially when the platform is distorted by people with POV issues. ED MD 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite, as you request, and also provided a primary source. Instead of "war on drugs", which as you note is a policy rather than a value, I've moved closer to the acutal document, which stresses the value of schools free of drugs and violence. I've removed government support of health care. As for the value of science, that is something I strongly believe in, but I agree that it is not a family value, so I've removed it. (By the way, I teach college math, not high school science, though there is no reason you should know that.)

On the other hand, I think that conservation really is a moral value, and I think it is immoral to pollute the earth. How casting doubt on what scientists say about global warming became a conservative issue baffles me.

You constantly accuse me of having a point of view. Everyone has a point of view. The important thing is to include in Wikipedia facts, not my own unsupported opinions. I really do try to do that, and when I slip and you call me on it, I appreciate the correction.

As for what constitutes "family values", the big difference between my point of view (which I can mention here in a talk page, but never in the article itself) and the view of Republicans is that they constantly stress sexual and religious morality, while I think that at least as far as the government is concerned, the most important values are honesty and fiscal responsibility. I really don't see why sex and relgion are any business of the federal government. Rick Norwood 12:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick: "family values" has yet to be defined. While it is ture that "conservation" can be construed as a moral value, the article is on FAMILY values. Most conservatives expect for morons like Ruch Limbaugh will agree that conservation is not only morally correct, but economically correct as well since there are limited resources and its use over time is needed to sustain society. Health care, war on drugs, etc. are not necessarily a "family value" (maybe health care to some extent--but it is in the context of behavior--such as abstinence is the ony way to prevent HIV ...etc.) . Stick to things that relate directly to the family (of course anything can indirectly relate to the family). ED MD 13:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick: before reverting, I think you need to expalin how clean air (and all of the other platforms issues) is classified as a "family" value. It may be a value, but it is not a family value.

Political sloganeering[edit]

Wikipedia should not give a platform for political sloganeering, especially phony stuff. I removed the insulting Kerry statement. The churches were quietly performing social services to support families from before he was in diapers. The article still has an obvious slant (discredit "family values"), although some nonsense (straw men, etc) has been removed. Pollinator 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of misinformation in this article[edit]

Read the following:

As societies have shifted economically from agriculture to industry, extended families have largely given way to nuclear families. Family values, also, do not remain fixed and rigid; they change in response to economic, political, and cultural developments. They vary from country to country, and even between different households.
Before the 20th century, for example, in most places and at most times, the idea of a married woman seeking status and recognition independent of her husband would have constituted a breach of family values. For example, the Bible teaches that women should be obedient to their husbands, and that men should love their wives as Christ loves the church. [1]

First of all, the line "woman seeking status and recognition independent of her husband would have constituted a breach of family values" would have been construed in the past a a breech of religious morality and not necessarily of "family values." the Term family values is a newer term and I don't think that the explanation is appropriate. There is a reference to the chruch's position about men and women, but the reference is religious and not in reference to the idea of family values. Also, The first parargarph can be expalained more succinctly. I don't think the move from extended to nuclear family is a drive for changes in "family values." the second half of the first paragraph is a given and will try for a succint rewrite. ED MD 06:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Replacing sourced material with your own ideas is not acceptable. Contributions to Wikipedia should be based on outside reading, not on what you think. 2) New words can be applied to old situations. Either family values means something, that is, values that are considered to support the family, or it is a meaningless buzzword. Most people in the past, and may people today think that for women to obey men is an important family value, as the reference to St. Paul shows. Rick Norwood 12:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That issue is represented. But again the main issue here is the definition. Is the definition of Family values the same as the political platform. The article neeeds NPOV. Address which aspect you think is not sourced and I will find sources for you. Thank you. ED MD 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My biggest concern is this: you removed the link to the Republican party platform, and added what seem to me to be your own personal opinion of which family values the article should present. If we are going to have a section on Republican family values, it should contain what the Republican party actually say their family values are. Also, if there is to be a section on Democratic family values, it should represent what the Democrats say, without an editorial comment that Democratic family values are not "real" family values. You will recall that I removed several Democratic values that you objected to. But to say that limiting the number of children is not a "family value" is clearly a case of wanting the article to represent your views instead of the referenced views. There is so much wrong with what you have written, that I am going to revert again. But if you want to address the points one at a time, I am, as always willing to work with you. I appreciate your offer to supply references. Let's begin by your removal of all reference to Christian values from the beginning of the article. The strong connection between "family values" and Christianity is referenced. Don't delete it unless you can supply a reference showing that there is not a strong connection between "family values" and Christianity. Rick Norwood 12:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put the republican party platfrom link back in, but the "platform" is not the same thing as "values". So the list that you have for the parties is completely off. I have not removed the link of "family values" to chirstian beliefs it is there in the article. ED MD 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

what is a "family value"[edit]

Listed below is the current "family values by the Democratic party:

  • The value of a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child
  • The value of affirmative action to redress discrimination
  • The value of schools free from drugs and violence
  • The value of education
  • The value of clean air and water
  • The value of conservation
  • The value of the family
  • The value of taxation based on an ability to pay
  • The value of a living wage

Please explain how each one is a FAMILY value as opposed to a simple value. Thank you. ED MD

wow... I just read you entry on this topic in the past. "The phrase "family values", as it is currently used, has little to do with either families or values. As the article notes, it is a political buzzword, which means nothing more than "vote for my candidate". In this respect, it is a synonym for "motherhood, the flag, and apple pie". Rick Norwood 19:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) ". I think you are mistaken. The term has a fuzzy meaning, but that does not mean it advocates for the absurd. ED MD 18:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to. A woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child saves families from the poverty that follows when a woman has more children than the family can afford to care for. Affirmative action should insure that children of black families will have the same access to education as children of white families. Of course, it doesn't. Black families get much worse education than white families. Read Savage Inequalities. Similarly, black families suffer much more from drugs and violence at school. Raising healthy children is obviously a family value, as is education and clean air and water. And I assume we can agree that family is a family value. As for the others, they certainly the impact on families, but if you want to remove them, I won't object. Rick Norwood 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More work to improve the article.[edit]

I think this is an important topic, but the article really cannot contain sentences such as the following:

"Family values is a political and social concept first used in the United States in 1966 to describe moral beliefs in society specifically in response to the perception of declining morality."

In the first place, concepts aren't used. The author is presumably trying to say "The phrase was first used..." To describe the beliefs implied by the phrase as "moral" or "immoral" is to make a value judgment. The change from active voice to passive voice in mid-sentence is unacceptable. Finally, the sentence does not say whose "response" and whose "perception".

I've attempted a rewrite. Rick Norwood 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; it's an improvement. Pollinator 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Quale VP in 1966?[edit]

The article starts as follows:

Family values is a phrase first used in the United States in 1966 by Vice President Dan Quayle

However, Dan Quayle was not vice-president in 1966. Please correct either name or date LHOON 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this! Rick Norwood 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick you need a reference to say that Quayle was the first to use the phrase. It is obviously not a recent invention. Quayle's comments were simply an impetus for start of a debate on the subject. As such, the first line need to be reverted. ED MD 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the 'family values' chorus was in use during the Reagan administration and Qualye's comments were not the start; they were the re-newal or continuation

US Bias ?[edit]

This article is clearly written from a U.S. point of view, all political and media references are US based. Either the article needs to be re-written to include the rest of world (surprising as it may be to some, but the US only accounts for 4% of the population), or the article needs a new title. I suspect the latter would be easier. Markb 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree. But as far as I know the only country where this phrase is considered important is the US. If people in other countries use the phrase, or the equivalent in their own language, or have expressed opinions about its use in US politics, I would love to hear about it. Rick Norwood 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a phrase I've read in conjunction with the UK Conservative party, it us also associated with the Catholic Church, e.g. Pope Benedict XVI's recent trip to Spain. BTW, this isn't an anti-US rant, it's just that at the moment the article is soley about the US, yet the title does not reflect this. Rather than I just put a rather sad one line paragraph to reflect it's use elsewhere, I'd call upon others with more knowledge to do so. Markb 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understood your purpose, and I, too, hope somebody with more knowledge adds to the article. Rick Norwood 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Rick you claimed that the information was not sourced a as reson to change it to you version, yet you removed sources yourself and then did not provide sources. Differences in sections:

  • Support of marriage and for children to be raised in family consisting of a man and a woman
  • Support of policies that encourage "adoption over abortion" [1]
  • Support of behavior identified as traditional or moral

versus your changes:

  • Support of marriage and for children to be raised by one mother and one father
  • Support of policies that encourage "adoption over abortion"
  • The value of abstinence as the best method for preventing teen pregnancy

I think it is better written in the prvious version. ED MD 20:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem with your version. A family "consisting" of a man and a woman by definition has no children.

You delete conservative views that are referenced, and replace them with views that are not referenced. This is unacceptable. Rick Norwood 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick, the reference: was deleted by you. Your other entries do not have references. So what you are saying is completely false. Please provide direct references and supply the quotes to which you make your assertions. I think you are attempting to place POV issues in the article. Stating "the value of x" does not make it a value. Schools free from drugs and violence is not a family value. A value is typically in the affirmative such as the valuing personal responsibility or such things as morally acceptable behavior. Otherwise, one could make ridiculous statements all day like the value of fighting disease and cancer. That may be a policy objective, but it is not a value in which Family values is derived. Read the value article to see the differences. There are doctrinal and ethical values and "family values" is mostly an ethical one. Otherwise, why not argue that the war on terrorism is a family value since children should live in a terror-free world? Also, the line "children to be raised in family consisting of a man and a woman" implies that the child is in the family. You semantics is getting out of line. Where did you get the line that Quayle invented the idea of family values Rick? ED MD 09:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan Quayle was not the first person to use Family values[edit]

Rick Where do you get this stuff? The original intro is NPOV and global. Please do not make it specific to the US (and Quayle did not first use it)... The article already has a reference to the Quayle incident, but it is not the defining aspect of family values!!! Hence its reference does not belong in the first paragraph. The article has enough difficulty in even defining the term. As of yet there have been multiple changes to the definition as it seems to me that nobody knows it precisely. I know you have an anti-conservative agenda, but it is not the objective of Wikipedia. ED MD 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am not a mind reader, and therefore have to do my best with published references. Since other people lack your skill, you have to live with published references, too. Rick Norwood 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement that Quayle was the first to use the term "Family values" is not sourced by your references. Its reference in the first, hence, it does not belong. You can bring up another Arbcom on it. ED MD 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At your request, I removed the statement that Quayle was the first to use the term. And you should feel free to discuss earlier uses of the term, provided you reference them. On the other hand, I strongly object to you deleting statements by people such as US Senator John Kerry, which are referenced. Rick Norwood 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan Quayle is not the most important person in describing family values. The inclusion of Quayle in the first sentence preceeds a defninition. The intro beforehand is general and is NPOV and fails to incorporate a world view. You constantly insert POV issues into articles. And you have reverted Pollinator and me 4 times in the last 24 hours. Please drop the POV and provide references to you inclusion which you claim you have yet have not. Especially as evidenced by your removal my the reference that I sited. ED MD 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether Dan Quayle is important or not, it was he who brought the phrase into the limelight. But by all means, please site earlier uses, with references. I have provided references for what I have contributed to the article, but if there is anything in the article you would like referenced that isn't referenced, please let me know what it is. Rick Norwood 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick you are missing the point. The point is that prior to defining the subject or explaining the subject you mention the Dan Quayle. The reference to Dan Quayle exists in the article under the policital application and the fact that his speech ignited a debate. Simply becuase the speech touched off a "decade of debate" does not mean the term is defined in reference to Quayle. The term should have enough importance to stand on its own. the only purpose you your inclusion in the first sentence is to establish a POV viewpoint. I will revert. Please identify ANY aspect that you believe is POV in my version of the intro. ED MD 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Provided a reference which shows the link between "family values," "declining morals," and has a global perspective (a british publication). This is general enough for an intro. References to Quayle in the first paragraph are out of line, especially when the term has not even been defined. ED MD 06:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try to find a better source for the introduction than "Traditional families hit by declining morals, say mothers" by Rebecca Camber in the Daily Mail for 27 June 2006. But let it be. I would still like to see a reference to show that Dan Quayle did not coin the phrase. One shouldn't be hard to find.
On the other hand, the Republican platform does have that bit about abstinence. Let's not try to avoid mention of what Republicans say family values means to them. Rick Norwood 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The Republican platform has 80+ pages of issues of which abstinence is mentioned a few times. The problem is deciding which is included in "family values" article and what is not. Essentially there is a selection bias. In addition, the issue is taken out of context. I reviewed the platform, yet there was no mention of the "value of abstinence." The platform refers to abstinence in the following ways:
abstinence in relationship to stopping world HIV, including abstinence or one lifelong partner to decrease the exposeure risk of obtaining HIV, and spending to increase its advocacy
abstinence to decrease the out-of-wedlock children and prevent STD (of which 3 million teeenages contract per year) and doubling abstinence programs to combat HIV AIDS.
The reference comes from the support health choices section. Will include all of them to avoid selection bias. ED MD 08:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rick Norwood 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Claim that I have made no responses on the talk page.[edit]

I count ten signed responses this week alone.

The deleted material is referenced. The new material is unreferenced. Independent sources, not unsourced opinions, however strongly held, are required in Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood 15:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You made no response on the political propaganda point, so your continual reversions are just edit warring. This is the issue I'm dealing with now; I cannot speak for other editors. As far as references, there is lots of referenced material, like this, that is unworthy of Wikipedia. I'm removing it again. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for political propaganda. Deal with this Rick, rather than edit war. There are much more substantive materials and issues than this, which is basically an insulting lie. Pollinator 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My contributions to this article are designed to be informative. They are referenced. You may consider what John Kerry said to be political propaganda, I may consider it to be an example of how Democrats have used the phrase "family values", both of those considerations are beside the point. The sentence in question is not a statement that what Kerry said is true, it is a statement that Kerry, in fact, said it. If he said it, then the claim that he said it is true. If he did not say it, then the claim that he said it is untrue.

I have made a large number of concessions, done a large number of rewrites, trying to reach a compromise with ED MD and now with you. Rick Norwood 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your relationship with Ed is irrelevant and I don't know why you keep trying to merge him and me. There is one issue here, in that you are repeating an insulting and untrue piece of political propaganda (I betcha Kerry wishes he hadn't said it - it certainly is embarassing). Such hype does not belong in Wikipedia. Stick to substantive issues. Pollinator 06:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not what Kerry said was true, it illustrates how Democrats, or at least one major Democrat, has used the phrase "family values". As such, it clearly belongs in the article. Rick Norwood 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why you are so fixated on repeating this bit of unworthy trivia. Could it be that you actually believe it and think it clever? That's hard to believe unless you have no sense of history. On the other hand, you may be choosing the emphasis on Kerry's gaffe to discredit him. But that could backfire, as there are plenty of people with no sense of history. At any rate the only notable thing is that Kerry took a polarizing slap at the people who have been running orphanages and adoption agencies, holding marriage seminars, helping single mothers, and thousands of other things to support families, long before the term "family values" came into vogue. The statement no doubt cost him more votes than it gained. It should be moved to the propaganda page as an illustration, as it contains many of the main elements such as glittering generalities, oversimplification, stereotyping (straw man), black and white fallacy, doublespeak, and unstated assumption.
Because the quote lacks any substance, it does not belong in a serious article about a substantive topic, unless it is used as a illustration of how low the debate can go when politicians use propaganda to polarize rather than inform the populace. If you truly want to represent the "other side" I'm sure you can find some real, substantive quotes for a substantive article rather than this cheap shot which adds nothing. Pollinator 14:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You say I'm "fixated" on the quote. I could say you are "fixated" on removing it. Neither has anything to do with whether the quote should be there are not. Since the subject is how Democrats use "family values", and since John Kerry is a Democrat, and since the quote contains the phrase "family values", it is a good example of how Democrats use the phrase "family values". Whether the quote is to the point or cheap propaganda is irrelevent -- it is an example of how the Democrats use the phrase. Rick Norwood 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not dealt with the fact that the quote is not substantive in any way except as an illustration of propaganda. Your words are dancing around and essentially unresponsive to the issue brought forth. Propaganda is not worthy as serious Wikipedia content, except perhaps on the propaganda page. Pollinator 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue directly and substantively. The quote illustrates how a major Democrat used the phrase. If it is propaganda, then that Democrat used the phrase as propaganda, and the quote illustrates that. Rick Norwood 22:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then be honest about it and identify it as propaganda; else Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for propaganda. It may be referenced, but I will delete it as long as necessary, because it is only a very poor quality, pulp journalism, POV type of byte and is unworthy of Wikipedia. The best solution to the impasse would be to include some substantive material on the Democratic position. Pollinator 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, feel free to replace the quote by a better one, but not to delete it entirely. Rick Norwood 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

democratic positions[edit]

Rick, at least we have some agreement with the current setup of the article. Why don't you go through the platform and try to identify specific things that the democrats say. The current list is a bit meaningless with such lines as "The value of education" and "The value of the family." Also, the use of the phrase "support for" is probably a better structure than "value of" since support means that they are advocating possibly a specific policy. Adding the "value of" does not necessarily make the the object of the preposition a value in and of itself (i.e. the family is not a value per se, it is valued. Mentioning the way in which policies support the subject may imply the perspective of that value.) ED MD 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The things on the Democratic list are what the Democrats actually say. "The value of the family," is a direct quote. As for "support for" vs. "value of", I have no strong opinion one way of the other. Rick Norwood 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

HalJor's edit[edit]

I stand corrected. Give my best to JonStu. Rick Norwood 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

James recommends edit[edit]

I believe this article is biased and should be changed. One particular aspect I found offensive was the Democratic value listed as:

"The value of a woman's right to choose whether or not to bear a child"

Athough this may or may not be actual language from the DNC platform, it's biased to suggest this is a Democratic reference to "family values." If the author is going to list this, I request that he or she document where in the Democratic platform this position is advocated as a family value. If the author is unable to document this reference, this post is essentially bias and the "keep" decision should revisited.

It seems odd that you would question this, since it is one of the main issues that separate Democrats and Republicans. Here is the quote:
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we

believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

If your objection is to the language, then you may want to refer to the talk pages on the article abortion, where it was agreed that, in fairness, each side should be allowed to use its own description of its position (instead of, for example, styling the two parties "pro life" and "baby murderers".) Rick Norwood 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Your logic makes my point. If as you say, the abortion page allows both sides to define thier meaning of abortion, then why are you trying to characterize the Democratic Party's understanding of family values with out official reference. No where in your post does it say that the Democratic party supports abortion as a family value. Thats hyperbole. Your response doesn't adequately meet the standard of justifying your characterization of the Democratic Party's position on family values. Family values can include economic considerations such as: supporting schools so families can provide their children with a good education, promoting a strong economy that supports decent paying wages so families can spend more time together and working to increase health care so families can stay healthy. These concerns are certainly pro-family.

I think you're taking advantage of this posting to promote your point of view, without offering an objective differing point of view. This is disingenuous and counterproductive and you are not respecting the ethical guidelines of wikipedia.

The section does not present my point of view. You have no way of knowing which planks of the Democratic Party I support and which I do not support. The section represent the Democratic party point of view. Your statement "with out official reference" is hard to understand, considering the official reference, the Democratic Party platform, is referenced. You can't get much more official than that. On the other hand, I appreciate your support on the issue of whether good education, decent wages, and health care are family values. I think they are, but took them out in an effort to compromise with ER MD. Rick Norwood 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a compromise. You state your understanding of Republican support for family values but you allow the other side to define the meaning of Democratic support for family values.

I'm always willing to compromise, but I don't understand what you are suggesting. My understand of Republican support for family values is what it says in the Republican platform. My understanding of the meaning of Democratic support for family values is what it says in the Democratic platform. It isn't clear what you mean by "the other side". Do you mean that Republicans should say what Democrats mean? That doesn't make any sense. Clearly, we should let each side say what that side means. There is already enough propaganda on the web with each side demonizing the other side. Rick Norwood 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all: "Family values listed in the 2004 Democratic party platform include" is deceptive. No where in the Democratic platform does it mention "family values". Therefor, your post is implicitly biased for selectively defining family values for the Democrats.

Second After reading the discussion board on the deletion recommendation, many of the delete recommendations were made on the bias/point of view problems with the article and almost half the keep recommendations were made with the stipulation that the article needed work and the bias needed to be worked out.

To save the trouble of reopening the delete question, I'm asking you to compromise on suggested edits. I suggest that you allow someone who agress with the Republican point of view to define family values for the Republicans and you allow someone with a Democratic point of view define family values for the Democrats. This seems fair. I'm surprised why you wont meet me halfway at this reasonable request. James

It wasn't a question of not meeting you half way, it was a question of not understanding what you meant. In any case, things have settled down, now, and I would hate to reopen this particular bag of worms. Is there anything in particular you object to about the form the article takes at present? Rick Norwood 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question.

I would change the sentence from: Family values listed in the 2004 Democratic party platform include [16] To: Although the 2004 Democratic party platform doesn't specifically mention family values, Democratic support for families include:

And I would change the list of policies from:

   * Support for families, including gay and lesbian families
   * Support family planning and adoption incentives
   * Support for abortion rights, including policies that make it "safe, legal, and rare"
   * Support for education
   * Support for policies that reduce violence and drug use


   * Support for good paying jobs so families can spend more time together
   * Support for paid maternity leave
   * Support for health care for all families
   * Support for strong public schools
   * Support for policies that reduce violence and drug use
   * Support for policies that restrict child access to pornography
   * Support for Head Start programs that facilitate the early development of at risk children

Thanks- j

I don't think you can leave out:

  * Support for families, including gay and lesbian families
  * Support family planning and adoption incentives
  * Support for abortion rights, including policies that make it "safe, legal, and rare"

I think it would be a good thing to rephrase them to reflect the actual language of the platform. Some of the items you list were in the section previously, but someone objected that they were not really "family values" and I took them out rather than start an edit war. Rick Norwood 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick, the Democratic platform doesn't mention family values. This is all suggestive point of view. If you require that the Democrats support same sex marriages, family planning and abortion rights, then I'm going to require that Republicans support ending the Estate tax for wealthy families.

I don't think you can justify your suggested text.

I'd recommend

  • Supporting tolerance towards same sex marriage.
  • Support of family planning and adoption incentives

Abortion is a form of family planning a mention of it here is redundant.

article seems to have stabilized and is balanced[edit]

I don't know of the policy how a page with an NPOV dispute gets removed, but I think the page is fairly NPOV at this time. ED MD 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed and possible bias[edit]

The New York Times survey needs a citation. Also, the article states that "pro family policies supported by Democrats include..." That language can be considered to be an endorsement for the Democrat platform. Nowhere does the article mention "pro family policies supported by the GOP include..." The article should only mention that the Democrats and Republicans consider their respective policies to be pro family.Politician818 04:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Family values in Islam[edit]

I've just included information on "Family values in Islam" [2]. For those of you who are interested to add more information here (especially the experts in this particular field), you are most welcome to do so. Got any more references for this area? --Fantastic4boy 04:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, your "family values in Islam" stuff had the lifespan of a duck in a paper masher. You've got to understand that "family values" is no more or less than a buzzword for "Christians' (as defined by us) right to rule". Muslims are seen as evil by definition, therefore they cannot have families or values... (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political application gives too much credit too Quayle?[edit]

"Political application" section says that "The use of family values as a political term became widespread after a 1992 speech by Vice President Dan Quayle". Though it is cited, I am bothered by the fact that there is only a single cite, and that to a person who is at the communist end of the spectrum. I'd rather see a more "mainstream" cite. Personally I suspect the rise "family values" of politics was gradual, and that Quayle's role was minor. Peter Ballard 06:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My memory is that the explosion of uses of the phrase began with Quayle. I'd need to see cites of major earlier uses to be convinced otherwise. Rick Norwood 12:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

POV: Hypocrisy Documentation[edit]

This article documents the "embarrassment" in British politics when, after extolling "family values", members of the government were discovered to have had affairs.

Now we could write an entire article on the same phenomenon in U.S. politics - socially conservative lawmakers who claim to support "family values", yet have been divorced multiple times, cheated on their spouses, had secret gay sexual encounters, or encounters with underagers, or drug addictions, or gambling problems, etc.

And I'm sure wherever this political platform is attempted it ALWAYS leads to embarrassment in the end as politicians' lives are put under the microscope to see if they are living up to their own high moral standards.

Long story short, right now British politics, specifically John Major, seems like the only one getting trashed in this article, which is unfair. I would suggest sticking with defining the term and avoiding criticism, or inserting criticism of other countries' governments as well to make it fair, or better yet, writing one large paragraph about how running on the "family values" tickets historically has led to such embarrassment as the private lives of the lawmakers themselves get scrutinized as a (predictable) reaction by their opposition.Rglong 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. Maybe a section titled, "Accusations of hypocrisy of supporters of family values". Why don't you write it? Rick Norwood 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, WIkipedia shows it cannot write neutrally[edit]

The entire section of family values "Conservative and liberal perspectives" is nothing more than a "Look at these bigoted christians who want to force the US into a Theocracy" vs. "LIberals just want health care, to help people, support single parents, and be decent good people". This section was written by someone who obviously has an axe to grind. I would rewrite it, but I've learned that Wikipedia is more about controlling "knowledge" than promoting it. Conservative family values is NOT about imposing a theocracy, that entire paragraph is nothing more than red herring smear. Conservative family values promotes abstinence, adoption, heterosexual marriage, marriage above cohabitation, sanctity of human life, individual dignity, that morals are absolute, that individual rights are inherent (rather than granted by government), that children are best raised by loving and married parents...THAT is conservative family values, not some leftist hateful redherring about prayer in schools or forcing the 10 commandments everywhere...those have nothing to do with family values. What is wrong with wikipedia writers? Seriously? Why do you take "Family values" off course and talk about imposing a Christian theocracy, something that is another topic entirely? Wow talk about a slippery slope fallacy...we go from family values, to imposing a fundamentalist theocracy. lmao. Why cant you leftists just say the truth about what something is? Why do you have to turn it into something irrelevant? I would NEVER endorse a theocracy and wikipedia proves again how irrelevant it is.

I love the section about Family Values in Chinese thought. notice how the writing is written neutrally....notice how you don't see quotes from communists or nutcases...notice how the section isn't written to "slam" or criticize eastern religions. IT states simply what Chinese family values are...what they promote. So why can't you do this for conservative family values? Why do you take it as a soap box to slam Christianity? Why is it that Wikipedians have such zealous hate for Christianity? Can you not write a section about conservative family values in the same objective, neutral tone as the Chinese section? Are you even capable of it? - unsigned by

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Who is wikipedia? Is he the man in the centre of the earth that pulls the levers? Wikipedia is made up of the entire earth's population, and of those, the ones that wish to contribute. So mankind cannot write neutrally? Get to know wikipedia policies before slagging it off. Take your trolling habits somewhere else. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that conservative family values are not Christian family values. The great majority of Christians want no bar of some fringe group's extreme agenda, especially when that fringe group's leaders often turn out to be gay or paying prostitutes (or both) while condemning publicly the very same behaviours in others. (Some Christians have even argued that conservative values run counter to their religion, citing the words of Jesus in their defence.) Wikipedia, if it is capable of being characterised as having an opinion, has a neutral point of view and uses reliable sources for its material, and shuns original research and soapboxing. While it undoubtedly fails at times, it succeeds more often than not at presenting different sides of a story without taking any of them. Neutral exposition will probably upset those whose views are very set on a particular issue in such a way that conflicts with the available sources and research. Orderinchaos 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Only nuclear families?[edit]

"Family values are political and social beliefs that hold the Nuclear family to be the essential ethical and moral unit of society".

What about traditional extended families? Do family values not apply to them as well? Have any of the proponents of "family values" made any statements about this either way? Wardog (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified revisions based on dubious claims of OR, POV, RS[edit]

I have a question about reversion of this edit

Reversion based on OR claim but previous version provided two newspapers citation. Is using a newspaper OR?

Reversion claimed POV, but previous version provided newspaper citations of quotations from a well recognized conservative leader. Is citing a statement POV?

Revision stated that previous version had RS problem. But previous version provided a citation from the Sun Journal, a local newspaper. Is it the policy of Wikipedia that local newspapers are not RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The objection to the edit is not that it isn't true. The objection to the edit is that there are a lot of nuts in the world, and we are not squirrels. Wikipedia should not try to report every stupid thing anybody says or does, only what is notable. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Phyllis Schlafly is a leader of the conservative movement and has been for many, many years. She is not some "random nut". One of the comments she made about marital rape came when she was in the process of receiving an honorary degree for her work in politics.
Schlafly was instrumental in the nomination of Barry Goldwater. That you find Schlafly's views nuts, is your POV. In 1964 the centrist division of the Republican Party that supported Nelson Rockefeller thought Goldwater and Schlafly were nuts. That was POV then and calling Schlafly nuts now remains POV. (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: On this same issue, left a comment on my Talk
and I responded. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've got a reply there66.189.113.173 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

POV: Social conservatives are not all Christian activists[edit]

The idea of 'family values' was just that since the 60s, pop culture had been filled with a lot of pro-sex, pro-empowerment, anti-authority messages and very few messages towards things like personal responsibility. Conservatives blamed that for the high divorce rate at the time and the poverty in black communities, which they explained was due to broken families and fatherless children. The argument was just that the culture needs to promote certain values for families to raise children.

The article gives the impression that the only people who are social conservatives or support the idea of 'family values' are Christian activists, and all are basing their position on "Biblical truths". Christian activists have just been one very vocal group, but are even a minority among social conservatives.

The whole introduction of religion in the article at all is a non-sequitur, except to point out that what were considered 'family values' are what are considered traditional values, and for that reason one of the most vocal groups has been the Christian right, since traditional values are supported by religion. User:Brianshapiro

You're right. Quiet movers on many fronts do not get the recognition they deserve. This is particularly true in Wikipedia, where we must seek written references for the "facts" we present. The bulk of records around any topic is going to reflect the actions of the vocal players. A couple of other pet subject areas of mine suffer from similar fates. Don't know how we get around it. At least raising it here is good. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article supports what is said above. Christianity is not even mentioned in the lede. The second section does discusses the explicitly Christian use of the term, but that use is common.

I do think it would be a good idea to add referenced sources contrasting the almost universally accepted idea that a strong family and personal responsibility are virtues, and use of the term to promote specifically the values of conservative Christianity. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that the POV that you're referring to by "the values of conservative Christianity" is shared by a lot of people who don't identify with Christian activism. A large number of people have conservative, traditional views about sex, drugs, and abortion---think people should wait to have sex, think doing pot is bad, don't support gay marriage, etc.--but hate the evangelicals like Falwell and Robertson who go on TV and try to link that point of view to the Bible. That includes a lot of atheists, and most people who are religious and share those views think these things can be argued about in ways other than religious terms.
John McCain, for instance, has very socially conservative views, but has never tried to argue that they were based on "Biblical" sources, or that they specifically have to do with Christianity. Liebermann has moderate-conservative views, he pretty much agrees with the social conservative position, except he believes a womans right to choose should be legally protected. There are even libertarians who believe in the conservative view---Ron Paul for instance.
The section on 'conservative and liberal views' gives a lot of specific impressions about what the 'conservative' point of view is which actually only accurately describes a tiny minority of conservatives. Most conservatives would not argue that the government should endorse 'Christian morality' and don't think the goal should be for the culture to reflect 'Biblical values'. Just because evangelicals like Falwell and Robertson are the loudest doesn't mean they represent everyone, or even most people User:Brianshapiro

If the religious conservatives are a tiny minority of conservatives, you need to find a source for that statement before you include it in the article. My impression is that they are a large part of the conservative movement, but that may be because they are so vocal in their beliefs. Have you any hard data? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To start off, you need to make distinctions. A large number of social conservatives probably do attend church and regard religion as an important social institution. But the majority are not fundamentalists, don't like Falwell or Robertson, and don't think arguing their positions based on the Bible makes sense.
A good place to begin thinking about this is to just note the referendums on gay marriage in states like California. The majority of voters cast a ballot against gay marriage, yet, the majority of the Californian public obviously does not identify with fundamentalist evangelicals. Recent Gallup polls have also shown that a slim majority of the public (51%) considers now themselves to be pro-life [3] although the majority of those don't agree it should be illegal in every circumstance (the majority of all respondents, 53%, say legal only under certain circumstances). Those things themselves don't address the issue, but I think starting off with that is a way to show that the political debate is more complicated than people make it out to be. It means that a great deal of people who self-identify as 'moderate' actually closer side with the conservative positions than the liberal positions.
If you want hard figures, you can first look at a Pew research poll on religion in America [4]. Only 12.6% of Americans define themselves as 'traditionalist evangelical'; although 26.3% report themselves as evangelical, 13.7% of those regard themselves as either 'centrist' or 'modernist'. According to Pew's report on page 4:
"Traditionalists were characterized by a high level of orthodox belief (such as a high view of the authority of the Bible) and high religious engagement (such as regular worship attendance), and also a desire to preserve such traditional beliefs and practices in a changing world." ... "By these definitions, Traditionalist Evangelical Protestants were the largest category in Table 1 (12.6% of the 2004 sample). This group comes closest to the “religious right” widely discussed in the media."
Among even polls of evangelicals, Falwell and Robertson have had low approval ratings, and respondents actually admire John Paul II more [5]. Falwell has 44.1% and John Paul II has 59.4%.
What are the total numbers of social conservatives in the country, and how do they compare to the number of 'traditionalist evangelicals' and how do they compare to people who like Falwell? A Rasmussen poll on the issue is a good answer [6] :
"...37% say they are conservative when it comes to “social issues like abortion, public prayer, and church-state topics.” On such social issues, 30% say they are moderate while 30% say liberal."
37% say they're socially conservative, but only 12.6% are define what Pew research calls “religious right”, traditionalist evangelicals. That means only 34% of self-identifying social conservatives have “religious right” views. Even fewer of those people have a positive opinion of Falwell, since the 44% approval of him among evangelicals would mean that there were even people who defined themselves as 'traditionalist' who didn't like him.
Now, put that in a larger perspective. While 37% of the public identifies as being 'social conservative', by the Gallup survey on abortion, 51% identify with the socially conservative pro-life position. 24% of those are what Pew calls “religious right”. And, according to Gallup, 57% of the public is opposed to gay marriage [7]. Only 22% of those are what Pew calls “religious right”. So, that means regarding people who support socially conservative positions--say they're pro-life and oppose gay marriage--76% of them are not the “religious right”.
So the question I have is.. why are these people's positions overrepresented in the wiki article? User:Brianshapiro

The vote in California on gay-marriage was strongly influenced by two groups, by Black evangelicals and by Mormons, who poured a lot of money into ads. But the original question was not whether most conservatives were evangelicals, but rather whether "Most conservatives would not argue that the government should endorse 'Christian morality' and don't think the goal should be for the culture to reflect 'Biblical values'." Many who argue that the government should endorse Christian morality are Catholic, Mormon, or some other denomination. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is among those who agree with social conservative positions, and among those who identify themselves as social conservative, very few are actually represented by hard-right evangelicals--- and the evangelicals are the ones who go on TV and preach about the government needing to endorse 'Christian morals' and the country to needing have 'Biblical values'. Its very possible to be religious and disagree with that point of view. Just because you're Catholic and against gay marriage doesn't mean you have to think "Christian morals should be imposed on people". It just means you have a religious belief and a political belief, and they have some degree of alignment.
Catholics also tend to be interested in helping the environment, and the Pope says its a moral duty to help the environment. Does that mean they think environmental regulations are "using the government to carry out God's will?" That they support laws against animal abuse because they want "Christian morals imposed on people"? Falwell, Robertson and the like use very pompous, stupid rhetoric, and very few social conservatives like them.
Second, I'm not sure what your point is about the vote in California. You think Californians just voted that way because money was poured into ads? The voting was consistent with previous referendums and also plenty of polling data concerning CA. User:Brianshapiro

Money influences elections. It is not the only influence. It is not in every single case the decisive influence. But, statistically, it is the most important influence. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianshapiro - if you don't think that money for advertising influences votes, did those paying for the advertising waste their money? HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as discipline and religious commitment"[edit]

I removed this section because it's a meaningless politico-religious catchphrase. Discipline of what sort? Religious commitment to what? Of course they identify it as moral, that's why they support it! Of course they identify it as traditional, they're conservative! I suggest clarification if you're going to add it back. Roscelese (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


I hesitate to delet "complementarianism", because it has three references, but it is not a word that is often used. Is there some better way to describe this view? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bravo Wikipedians[edit]

In two years, this article has evolved into something quite impressive! When I first view the article in 2011 it was a political tool but now, with the global influence, it is an amazing accomplishment. I would like to see more global influence/interpretation concerning this topic.Stmullin (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)