The '''Riesling Trail''' is a 27 kilometre walking and riding track located in the [[Clare Valley]], [[South Australia]]. It runs between [[Auburn]] and [[Clare]], passing through several towns and villages along the way, including [[Leasingham]], [[Watervale]], [[Penwortham, South Australia|Penwortham]] and [[Sevenhill]]. Originally part of the railway branch line which ran between [[Riverton]] in the south to [[Spalding]] in the north, it was abandoned after the [[1983]] [[Ash Wednesday]] bushfires which burnt through the valley and damaged a lot of the trackwork. It was decided that the old railway lines would be removed and in the late 1990s, this part of the route was converted into its present use as a walking and cycle trail. Many of the original rails were sent to [[Queensland]], where they were layed down as tracks used for transporting sugar trains in the north of that state.
== Copyvio and suggested modification ==
Please note that the article may be currently in copyright violation. The phrase defining the ownership society appears, ''without attribution'' directly from the cato institute.
:I find it too cold. In my opinion, CATO institute is really the think tank that defined that notion, and the further you are from the content of that, the less accurate your definition is gonna be. I tried to follow all comments about it, and the CATO's one was most useful. Incidentally, if you want an explicit agreement that their ideas - even sentences - can be used, you can have it. ;-) I guess it's not your real problem with the text! --[[User:Lumidek|Lumidek]] 13:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
----
:: "''if you want an explicit agreement that their ideas - even sentences you can have it''". Did you obtain said agreement? Nothing in the Cato Institute webpage that I saw mentioned that you could do so without attribution. And regardless of what Cato Institute policy is, such text in WP should always be accompanied by attribution. Also it's a disservice to readers to include almost a direct quote without a source.
:: "''I guess it's not your real problem with the text!''" Oh really? What do you mean exactly? I've already mentioned to you on your talk page that the article was arguably not neutral. Do you think WP is an appropriate medium to publicize ideas from a source with an avowed political purpose ''without mentioning the source''? Do you mean something else by this remark?
:: The article as you originally wrote it was quite careless with its terminology. For instance in what sense did you mean "ownership society" is a ''model'' of society. Did you mean it in the sense of [[model_(abstract)|model]]? Now please understand I'm not trying to critize ''you'' for what may be your belief in Bush's proposals; although you are right, I don't agree with them. I am criticizing you for writing something which had little possibility of constructive expansion. The article was edited, in the last few hours, but the article was reworked considerably, not expanded. You should see that you have something to lose by that. Even believers in the ''ownership society'' can gain from critics, who will undoubtedly contribute negative information, but from which you will learn something. Is constructive dialogue something you really want to avoid?
[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 15:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
----
I propose the following modification
'''Ownership society''' is a term apparently first used by [[George W. Bush]] in early 2003 and now widely used by members of his administration and supporters of his privatization programs. According to Bush's acceptance speech in the [[2004]] Republican National Convention,
:"''In an ownership society, more people will own their health care plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement.''"
The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, [[2003]] in Kennesaw, [[Georgia]]) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, ''Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03'', Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). Since early [[2004]] Bush and his supporters describe the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms. The term is also used more generally to include specific policy proposals concerning [[education]] and [[retirement savings]]. According to the [[Cato Institute]] [http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/]
:"''An ownership society values [[responsibility]], [[liberty]], and [[property]]. Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings.
==Quotes==
"...''if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more [[vitality]] there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the [[future]] of this country." - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
"We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored. - John Major conference speech 1991." What does this have to do with the article? - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 21:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: The article should place the term in some historical perspective. Even though the sequence of characters "ownership society" may not have been uttered in a political context before, the concept is not new. For instance, one of the proponents of the idea within the Cato Institute of Bush's is José Piñero.
::I see no reason to remove the quote, it is clearly historically relevant and unless you provide more cogent argument for removal will put it back in.
:::What does the John Major saying have to do with the article? - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 22:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Rant==
::There is a lot of supporting evidence for the historical origins of Bush's proposal both in Thactherism and in [[Augusto Pinochet]]'s privatization programs in Chile
::Scotland on Sunday. Dec 19, 2004. ''Bush's big idea is Thatcherism'', Fraser Nelson.
:::"George Bush, in an audacious bid to secure his place in history, is to reinvent Margaret Thatcher's policies for present-day America."
::: "In a move that will dismay his close ally Tony Blair, the US President is resurrecting the policies of Baroness Thatcher as the ideological agenda for his second and final term in the White House
==External links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities]
* [http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2004/BushAdLaudsOwnershipSociety.html Paul Krugman on the ownership society]
== Language ==
"The sale at affordable prices of public housing to tenants". Can you sell a price? - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 21:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Excuse me, how does this sentence even suggest the sale of a price? [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 22:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"and workers take full responsibility for their retirement savings and associated financial risk." You don't like that do you. It's not going to be "full" responsibility in out lifetime, and that's not near the presidents suggestion. "Associated financial risk", it's dangeours to save? Come on now. - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 21:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: The comment clearly does not say it is dangerous to save.[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 22:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Wandering ==
"Large corporations found this direct ownership of small parcels of shares to be a significant administrative overhead." First of all, EVERY [[public company]] has a lot of shareholders, if you don't like it, then that's fine, it has nothing to do with this article. Secondly, the conversation is really wandering from the subject here. - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 21:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, I am not crazy.
Complaints from British Gas were well-publicised. It is clear enough that (in the UK context) the large corporations had some reservations about 'share-owning democracy', as it came out of the privatisations.
Secondly, I wonder why you feel a WP article should feel so constrained as to what is mentioned.
[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 21:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:The article is not really about [[privatization]] is it? - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 21:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have now looked in detail at your edits. They seem to be entirely slanted, and not a reasonable reflection of the concept (rather than the narrow election slogan).
I suggest that your edits are heavy-handed, and remove context.
[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 21:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Revertion ==
This guy just reverted 9 edits. - [[User:Jerryseinfeld|Jerryseinfeld]] 22:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
|