text:
Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action

September 29, 2008

The video sharing website YouTube has removed several anti-Scientology videos following threats of legal action. Wikinews found that at least 11 videos have been removed from the site following Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices served on YouTube by Dr. Oliver Schaper, Scientologist and self-described advocate of the Church of Scientology's rights to free speech. Schaper, in an interview with Wikinews reporter Jason Safoutin, denied involvement in a previous run of DMCA requests involving similar video material. However, the videos in question bear a message that Schaper was the originator of the request.

According to YouTube the 11 videos were removed by direct DMCA requests from Schaper. The videos have been reported to be of anti-Scientology protests, recorded by various members of the group Anonymous.

In early September, an entity named American Rights Counsel LLC -- which has described itself as a 'rights group', but without provision of contact details -- requested the removal from YouTube of over 4,000 anti-Scientology videos. Many of these videos consisted entirely of self-made content by anti-Scientology protesters; others were quite explicitly extracts from official Church of Scientology footage. Users had initially speculated that Schaper was responsible for these requests; no evidence, however, has been obtained to this effect, nor has official comment been obtained from American Rights Counsel.

When comment was requested further to these earlier removal requests, Schaper stated that he was a "... very strong advocate for the Church of Scientology, the religion of Scientology and a free speech advocate." Schaper alleged that he had "...to this date no information about the American Rights Counsel" and "no connection, knowledge or involvement in this company [American Rights Counsel]".

Wikinews contacted Schaper to find out why he made the new requests. According to him, the videos were not of protests against Scientology, but instead were videos of alleged hate-crimes and hate-speech, which were allegedly attacking Schaper personally.

"None of the videos are accounts of any protests. The videos in question have been produced by an YouTube (U.K.) user to directly attack me and my companies. I made the requests in accordance with YouTube’s terms and condition, after confirming directly with YouTube and the local ECTF office in Los Angeles, to remove material that infringes on my copyright. None of the videos removed by YouTube fall under the fair use guidelines or can be considered news-worthy. The content of the videos has been classified by law-enforcement as hate-speech and frivolous attack. The producers of these videos are based in the U.K. and local law-enforcement has been contacted by the FBI," said Schaper to Wikinews.

When Wikinews asked Schaper if he was acting on behalf of the Church, Schaper denied any such involvement. He also stated that he was not attempting to remove videos critical of him, or the Church, but also emphasizes other videos still on YouTube that are "a personal attack against me and my beliefs."

"Despite the fact that I am a Scientologist, none of the videos removed, where [sic] removed on behalf of the Church of Scientology or any organization associated with the church. In addition I like to point out that I have not removed any video, critical of me personally which does not violate my copyrights and I have no intention to do so," said Schaper.

In addition, Wikinews invited Dr. Schaper to comment on the apparent discrepancy between his actions and his advocacy of free speech. Dr. Schaper feels that that the two stated aims are not in conflict, stating, "I believe the First Amendment but I also see how Anonymous tries to abuse these liberties. Not everything is protected under the free speech clause and laws have been enacted to protect each citizen from abuse."

Schaper also stated that Anonymous is "breaking the law" by uploading material to YouTube which could be considered hate crimes. He also states that he would not mind a one-on-one conversation with some members of Anonymous, but "these guys don’t have the balls for a direct sit-down because they should get their facts straight."

"Anonymous is overstating a case and claims that their abuse and online bullying would be protected under the First Amendment forgetting the fact that they indeed are breaking the laws," added Schaper.

Schaper does not plan on enforcing the Church's copyrights saying, "they can handle their own content" and that he "will continue to enforce my copyrights and seek full prosecution in cooperation with federal law-enforcement."

Wikinews has contacted YouTube for a statement regarding this incident, but has yet to receive a response.


text:
User:Richard Shebora

Hello

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Richard Shebora


text:
Talk:Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action

OR
I sent a mail to Mr. Schaper. We'll see what we get. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sent to youtube too. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a reply from Schaper. Anyone, trusted and or accredited, can request to see it. I also sent it through scoop. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OLD NEWS
This happened about a month ago and news media reported about it broadly (incl. eff.org). All the vids went back up. Not newsworthy anymore. 91.121.13.62 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read much? The source from AnonWire is less than 24 hours old, and we even link back to the article you are talking about.  When CoS got 4k videos removed.  This is a _different_ event. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, their are not as amny users on wikinews than on wikipedia, therefore things are done a lot more slowly. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yup, this is different. Not the same as what happened a month ago. Wikinews reported on that one too (2 articles in fact), and we were one of the first ones to do so. Gopher65talk 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image source credit
- I am not sure why the image source is not showing up correctly, can anyone fix this? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

EFF ?
Any word from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about this latest incident? Have they been contacted for a response, given that they have posted 2 blog posts about the prior DMCA incidents involving Scientology/Schaper ? Cirt (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not written them. Given Schaper admits he sent the DMCA's and what not, I didn't think it was needed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the horse's mouth
For the record, I am the UK YouTube user 'ShadowVsScientology' who Oschaper refers to in his statement. My video was removed as were many 'mirrors' of it on other people's accounts. I have yet to be contacted by my local law-enforcement, and in all honesty I believe Schaper to be lying, based on his previous track record. The video in question was created to make the public aware of Schaper and his antics, in response to his threats and intimidation towards memembers of Anonymous; I was not the first person to do this, my video clearly acknowledges in the credits that it is based on earlier videos by other people. Many of those are still up, (as is one copy of mine which seems to have slipped through) Schaper has gone after mine specifically as a personal vendetta; if he was that concerned about the videos that supposedly 'attack' him, they would ALL be gone. I stand by my work, I have no regrets or apologies for Schaper, he brought this on himself.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Have you filed a counter-claim with YouTube to get the video reinstated, as it is your right to do? --Kitch (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't. Filing a counter claim means giving YouTube my personal details, and these would in turn be passed on to Schaper (who will then give them to the CoS). Schaper knows this, which is why he is having the videos removed in this manner (apart from the fact that filing a claim gets the videos removed instantly). The only thing we have going for us is that a couple of Anonymous members who have already been 'namefagged' (ie identities made known to the CoS) have set up 'honeypot' accounts to host the videos, so that when Schaper takes them down, they CAN file a counter-claim. What I don't understand yet is why no legal action has been taken against Schaper, given that he is blatantly commiting a CRIME by claiming copyright on other people's videos (and I'm talking about instances when he did it under his own name, or under a company name that could be traced back to him). As for the ARC takedown, obviously no-one has been able to conclusively link him to that one yet. Oh BTW, Schaper is back on YouTube as 'ARCwins' (hmmm, what does that username tell you?), and thereby evading the suspension of his 'Oschaper' account.

Bottom line is, he's trying to get me to give up my personal information, which I'm not stupid enough to do.

And for the record, I have contacted the EFF, they are going to love this! The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My video is now available here: http://www.vimeo.com/1844125, I encourage anyone to watch it and decide for themselves if it is 'hate speech' (BTW, it was linked to in the last WikiNews article)! The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell copyright?
Schapper is constantly bitching about copyright on videos made by the users posting them. How do you protect your copyright on someone else's work? This is nonsense. --199.173.225.33 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you entirely understand copyright law here. Note that if someone else's work uses part of your work, you are entitled to protect the copyright of that part that is derived from your work. I'm not saying that is the case here, I haven't seen the video so I can't comment on that. But to use an example, if I compile a bunch of images I take from some press agency into a video and then add say John Lennon's Imagine as the background music (whether from a recording or if I record my own version of Imagine) then both the press agency and Yoko Ono will be entitled to sue me for copyright infrigement. This is the case even if I only add 10 seconds of Imagine or 1 photo from a press agency. In there US, there is an allowance for fair use, which means in certain circumstances I can use photos from a press agency or parts of Imagine. But these circumstances are limited and in many cases the limits will need to be tested in court for us to know how far they go. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Takedown Notice
YouTube finally got back to me, and actually sent me a full copy of the 'takedown notice', ie the thing Schaper filed against me. I've been informed that technically YouTube shouldn't have sent it to me; I now have all of his personal information without having compromised ANY of mine!!

Anyway, the two things of note are,

1) Schaper is complaining SPECIFICALLY about the unauthorised use of his photograph. Incidentally, he is claiming that it was stolen and that the theft is being investigated byt the police in Tustin, CA (he gives a case number). IIRC, the photo was found online by Anonymous and was one of the many bits of personal information that Schaper had made freely available online, if you looked hard enough. So bottom line is, if I remove his photo and re-upload, he has no legal basis to get it taken down again.

2) The takedown notice includes a massive list Schaper has compiled, of multiple URLs to 'Oschaper' videos; only one of those was actually made by me (mine is clearly marked as such and states that mine was inspired by earlier videos made by other users), however he is trying to claim that they are in fact three different versions of ONE video made by ME. In actual fact, they are several different videos. Also, one of the videos has no photograph at all, it is text-only, which contradicts his argument over use of the photograph.

I have posted the takedown notice here, for the benefit of all interested parties: http://forums.scientology-exposed.com/11-raids-operations/oschaper-strikes-back-221/18/ ; when you see the screeshots of the videos, you will see that they are clearly seperate videos and not 'three versions of the same video' as Schaper is claiming. FYI, my video is the one with Schaper's photo large and centered, black borders on either side, and white text. It is available currently on my Vimeo account as linked to above.

Finally, regarding the quote in your article where Schaper says he would like to sit down with Anonymous and chat, we are all for that. We attempted to have a proper discussion with him when he came onto our boards, but he thought it would be more fun to insult us etc. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

.gif image to .svg
editprotected

Proposal: Change link - to
 * Reason: .SVG file can be scaled and is of better quality than its .GIF counterpart. Cflm001 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Vatican accepts Juan Pablo Cafiero as Argentine Ambassador

"Questionable newsworthyness"
Could you please describe more what you meant by this? Thanks :) - Jurock (reply) 03:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Category
editprotected 'Category:Vatican' should be replaced with 'Category:The Vatican'. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅ ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
US pastors plan to defy law and endorse candidates

September 28, 2008 The Alliance Defense Fund has called on 35 pastors across the country to break IRS tax laws and endorse presidential candidates during sermons. The pastors will draw on Bible passages tomorrow in a protest organized by the group of conservative Christian lawyers.

The ADF launched the effort to protest a 50-year-old law which bans churches, religious groups, and non-profit groups that accept tax deductions from endorsing candidates. Erik Stanley, a legal adviser with the ADF, said the group would be sending copies of the sermons to the IRS and would be seeking a Supreme Court case. The law, he said, was unconstitutional because "being tax-exempt is part of freedom of religion; otherwise the government could tax churches out of existence."

Minnesota reverend Gus Booth, who is participating in the protest, says he will be endorsing Senator McCain and has forbidden his congregation from voting for Senator Obama due to his position on abortion. He defended his actions, saying "I have a First Amendment right to say whatever I want to say."

"Pulpit Freedom Sunday," as the event is being called, has drawn criticism from both religious and secular groups.

A group of former IRS officials and pastors held a conference on September 8, submitting a complaint to the IRS and urging other ministers to preach against the endorsements. One of the participants, former director of the IRS Marcus Owens, says the group may be facing a loss of its own tax exempt status and compared it to teaching people how to cheat on taxes.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the IRS are monitoring the situation.


text: Talk:US pastors plan to defy law and endorse candidates


text:
Template talk:Stock markets/core

This template was adapted from its original, in Wikinews in Spanish: es:Plantilla:Indicadores económicos/core. For any change, ask me or try to do it... - Jurock (reply) 05:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Stock markets/core


text:
Comments:US pastors plan to defy law and endorse candidates

Not on my tax dollars
There's no reason people can't freely give sermons about who they endorse. But when they are taking taxpayer money (and that's what being tax-exempt basically is: the government takes more money from the rest of us to give special privileges to churches) to influence politics, that's just wrong. There is no "right" for churches to be tax-exempt. They should consider themselves lucky they get that at all. --Poisonous (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your faith be subject to taxation? Kamnet (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. It's not faith that will be subject to taxation. It's the churches who receive a tax exemption (i.e. money from the government which means money from all taxpayers) but don't think they should be subject to resonable rules of what they can and can't do as part of that tax exemption. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason for that law. Churches have psychological power and can sway peoples' votes and opinions in a way that could tip the scales and cause the candidate they are supporting to win. Religion has its roots set deep in peoples' minds. Allowing churches to endorse candidates and preach to their congregations to vote for specific candidates opens a door for all kinds of nasty possibilities. Also, a church does not have the same rights as a citizen of the United States, or even of a corporation, and so is not protected by the Bill of Rights, and rightly so. - Lone Star Libertarian

Freedom of Speach
They should have that right to voice their opinion. But not tell them "if you vote for Obama you will vote for the Anti-Christ" And I'm sure their is a lot of Black churches endorsing Obama.--66.229.17.181 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech as an individual is guaranteed, sure. But when you're acting as a spokesperson (remember that a church is technically a pastor's place of employment) for a tax-exempt organization that also receives federal funding, you shouldn't be able to turn around and use the altar as a soapbox; Especially considering the kind of control the church has over its "customers" with the whole threat of hellfire thing swinging over their heads. That's the kind of thing that caused the protestants to splinter off from mainstream Catholicism in the first place. --Smackdat (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of any churches endorsing Obama, and they are tax ecempt, then you should report them as they are breaking the law. If not, you may want to not talk about things you don't understand Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What?? --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A kind of blackmail
I'd also like to point out that businesses can't tell their employees who to vote for (at least not legally), so why should a church have that right? One controls your fiscal fortunes and the other your spiritual fortunes. It's the equivalent of holding you at gunpoint and telling you who to vote for if you're a believer. - Lone Star Libertarian

Political speech in the pews is fundamental
For those who may have forgotten their lessons in American history (or, worse, were never taught them), keep in mind that much of the support for the American Revolutionary wary came about because the church took up the cause from the pulpit. Part of the reason all churches, faiths and religions in America are given their special and preferential treatment is because the preachers of the time were unafraid to speak of the societal and government ills that concerned the people that they ministered to. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that all people and all groups are entitled to. For the government to declare that one can only receive a tax benefit if one is willing to submit to censorship is a complete violation of our Constitutional rights, and a complete corruption of the government which is supposed to have a vested interest in protecting it. If the government will not do so, then perhaps it is time to begin stumping from the pulpit once again. Kamnet (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The preachers are still perfectly entitled to speak of the societal ills if they want. The simply can't endorse (or reject I presume) a candidate Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't track.  The power of the church comes from the membership, and the remarkable number of Catholics out there speaks volumes for how the actions of a church can fail to affect membership. As it stands, this is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights:  the amendment arises from the need to protect the democratic process from violation through authoritarian bodies, of which the church is only one.  This is the reason that donation caps are exercised, and regarding tax-exempt organisations, this right is revoked all together because, quite simply, the church takes no political stake in the spending of their tax dollars by government. Your pastors are not allowed to endorse candidates as pastors, in the authority that position conveys.  That position, and the power it carries, is silenced to preserve the one-person one-vote policy of the constitutional democracy.  Its not that your pastors are not entitled to voice opinion on politics, its that in order that others may be free to associate and deliberate as well, they are denied jurisdiction over the votes of their flock. This law doesn't hamper free speech, it protects it.  -Neva9257 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with constitutional rights except those being trampled on by the advocates of this disgusting idea. They will cause more backlash against religion than anything else, and that surely is not the intended goal. 68.210.70.130 02:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So much for seperation of church and state.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.254.174 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Church/State Separation?
Quote from article: The law, he said, was unconstitutional because "being tax-exempt is part of freedom of religion; otherwise the government could tax churches out of existence." This is a good point and has broadened my perspective on the matter. After thinking about it for awhile, I've come to this line of thought. Political pressure from churches and church-oriented efforts has, for a long time (since Revolutionary times, as a previous commenter mentioned), had an effect on the political scene. In other words, we've never had a pure church/state separation - it is better to accept this as inevitable as the formation of political parties. Still, that does not mean we cannot maintain the fundamental basis of the church/state separation concept in order to maintain the integrity of each (for the most part).

In other words, let them endorse their candidates and their issues. Let them mould the minds of their congregations. As long as the rules of the Constitution are adhered to in government, and we keep in mind the spirit of the republic, it shouldn't make a bit of difference. Jared--12.25.104.8 08:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"In other words, let them endorse their candidates and their issues. Let them mould the minds of their congregations. As long as the rules of the Constitution are adhered to in government, and we keep in mind the spirit of the republic, it shouldn't make a bit of difference. Jared--12.25.104.8 08:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)"

This is wrong. Church and State must remain separate for good reason. The Church is a powerful tool. It teaches people what is wrong and right, and many other issues. However if the Church sponsors the State with politics, well the Church isn't a place for religion as much as it is a political party. In fact, this allows to have people in government sponsored big religions to vote for our people. I don't care if this happens as long as none of my money allows these kinds of Churches to be tax-free.

If the Church pays for taxes like everyone else, they get freedom of speech to tell people who to vote. If the Church doesn't pay taxes, they can only be the reason they are tax-free, to be a place of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.203.195 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but we will never have a pure church/state separation. For as long as the country has existed, churches have been influencing people's opinions on social issues, in turn affecting politics. Even on the other side of the spectrum, you will find politicians that express their religious views, and even sometimes do so in a controversial manner. I agree with you that there must be a separation, however a pure separation may never be able to happen. My point is, if we hold true to the basic concept, the fundamental separation, and do not allow the entities themselves to influence each other in a manner which is unconstitutional, then allowing a congregation to express some political view (which already occurs in many places) will not have much of an effect, other than deepening the dividing lines between the various factions in the country. Jared --12.25.104.8 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
Template:Mathematics

An infobox for and its news. ''Are newer articles not showing? Refresh''

Customize this infobox .

title: Template:Mathematics


text:
Wikileaks claims news organisations pressured to remove articles on billionaire fraudster

September 28, 2008

Documents recently made public by the Internet site Wikileaks reveal that several large newspapers have removed or censored content related to the Iraqi-British fraudster Nadhmi Auchi, who has been publicly linked to Barack Obama via payments to former fundraiser, Antino "Tony" Rezko. A Guardian article, which no longer exists, stated that Auchi is also linked to senior members of the UK Labour Party.

Wikinews has confirmed that at least some of the articles involved definitely previously existed but have now been removed, including from newspapers that usually keep all of their articles online.

A New Statesman article included the Wikileaks documents confirms that "Mr Auchi's lawyers have written to ask us to remove the names of the articles concerned", and that this is what lead them to remove the content. The New Statesman removed a list of censored articles regarding the incident after receiving complaints.

The articles were taken down following letters from the Carter-Ruck law firm, which points out on its website that "A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false or to prove that he has in fact suffered any loss. Damage is presumed.”

One of the removed articles was published by The Guardian. It pointed out Auchi's "past links to Saddam Hussein's regime." It also said, "[a]ttempts by a French investigating magistrate to have Mr Auchi arrested during corruption inquiries had been blocked by Britain since July 2001." The article also claimed that Auchi may have had a role in the channeling of GBP 28 million to a Kuwaiti oil refinery.

Several articles published by The Observer, the sister paper of the Guardian, were also removed after reporting similar facts to the above.

In addition, an article published by The Daily Telegraph was deleted. It reported on "France's longest-running political and corporate corruption scandal," which resulted on a two year suspended sentence for Auchi.


text:
Talk:United Kingdom to introduce graphic images on cigarette packets

Innacurate: UK first to introduce
Belgium had already a long time graphic images on cigarette packets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.216.139 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is set to become the first European country to place graphic images on cigarette packets. UK is not the first European country to do this. Romania has been using graphic depictions on cigarettes for a few months.

85.120.204.30 09:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Radu
 * Not sure about Romania, but I do know Canada, although not a European country, also has similar images on their cigarette packs. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was not that Romania was the first to do so, it was that UK is not, and I gave one example of such a prior decision. Also, please respect formatting guides, and post new messages at the bottom.

85.120.204.30 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Radu

 * The difference here is "graphic" versus "explicit". It is the latter interpretation of the term being applied to the UK's new packaging. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Libricide plans on ice at University of Oslo

Digitize it ! They can then both store it in the dean's pocket and share it with the world...
 * Problem is that it is A LOT of news papers. More than a few papers DAILY for 150 to 200 years?  If it is just 6 news papers for 150 years - that is 328,500 issues. If it is 12 newspapers for 200 years, that is 876,000 issues.  Then you have to think about how many pages are in each issue, the fact that the standard newspaper is significantly larger than standard scanners, so either you would need multiple scans per page (each side too), or special scanners.  Oh - dont forget the time it takes to scan them.  On top of that - the really old ones are probably EXTREMLY delicate (200 year old news print...).  So you can just shove them in a feed scanner, it would have to be done by hand, very carefully.    Hopefully someone takes up the cause but it is alot of work -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 08:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Archiving/saving/digitalizing our history should be mandatory. Why can't they just give the documents to any libraries willing to take them? It'd be like an honor. --Poisonous (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

why not auction it out
Why dont they justa uction out the valuable newspapwers they may have.

I mean 200 years, is a lot.

Lots of things to learn on the invention and devlopment of electricity. On wars, and implementation of modern capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.16.216 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if the destruction of these papers is inevitable they should at least COMPOST THEM for goodness sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.211.64 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Wikileaks claims news organisations pressured to remove articles on billionaire fraudster

Sources? This really needs them :P --Poisonous (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OR Notes

 * Refers to documents on Wikileaks - it is currently the most recent document available (although I am not linking due to what happened when i linked the LDS stuff)
 * I verified stuff using http://web.archive.org

Anonymous101talk 08:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Web Archive links -  - two links i can find, I foind an observer article as well somwhere as well Anonymous101talk 10:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the second link is the wrong link. If someone wants me to spent half an hour finding the link again I will, but I think the first link proves it is not a hoax. Anonymous101talk 11:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents shows major news organizations changing articles on 'Obama linked businessman' following pressure
Long title is loooooooooooooooooooong. Also, "Wikileaks documents shows" - methinks proper grammar would be "show", not "shows". Cirt (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Anonymous101talk 09:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

 * To get back on my comment above, this (from the Guardian, ooh, the irony...) shows that the firm is going on where its founder left off. Interesting to note also they are yet to sue the Private Eye for calling them Britain's "most rediculous libel lawyers" by the name of 'Carter-Fuck' (although they have had a go at them before). I wonder why. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Connection?
Info on the connection between Obama and this guy? And sources? They could very well be high school sweethearts and the reader would think them scam buddies or something. They may well be, but sources and information should be provided, or else don't include the claim. --Poisonous (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Links
Explain why there is no links to the Wikileaks documents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.179.226 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church. Anonymous101talk 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Category
edit protected

Please add this article to Category:The Guardian. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Category
edit protected Please add this article to Category:Daily Telegraph (United Kingdom). Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ (not by me) BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be so glad to be able to build assistants for this sort of thing; I'm a great champion of humans always being keep in the loop with decisions, but helping humans to not fumble fussy details is a task for semi-automation. --Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


text:
Home of controversial book publisher set ablaze

September 28, 2008

Four people have been arrested on terrorism charges in Islington, London, England, after a suspected petrol bombing on the house of Martin Rynja, owner of book publishing company Gibson Square. His company recently sparked controversy after buying the rights to publish The Jewel of Medina, a work of fiction by Sherry Jones depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad and his child bride, Aisha.

The bombing, which occurred in the early hours of Saturday morning, led to the evacuation of the £2.5 million property in Lonsdale Square. Three men, aged 22, 30 and 40, were arrested at 2:25am BST by armed officers, two in Lonsdale Square, and one after being stopped near Angel tube station.

Police comments suggested that the trio had been under surveillance, and that they had advance knowledge of the plot and simply waited for the arsonists to strike, before arresting them.

On Saturday, a woman was arrested for obstructing police during their searches of four addresses - two in Walthamstow, and two in Ilford and Forest Gate.

Speaking earlier this month, Mr Rynja said that "The Jewel of Medina has become an important barometer of our time. As an independent publishing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate." Ms Jones commented that she did not intend for her novel to be offensive to Islam. She noted that she "[has] deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Muhammad." She "envisaged that [her] book would be a bridge builder" between Islam and the western world.


text: Talk:Home of controversial book publisher set ablaze


text:
Comments:Controversial book publisher's house petrol bombed

= Should books that could be considered offensive to some religions still be published? =

Yes
Yes i feel they should. The idea of fiction is that it "Is Not Real". It goes the same for films and television dramas. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * So long as the sole purpose of the book is not to preach 'kill all Jews/Muslims/Christians/Whatevers' then yes, without a doubt. Religions that can't take a bit of criticism aren't really much of a religion at all, and most followers of most religions recognise and accept that. (To give credit wehre it's due, that last sentence is based on a remark one of the Pythons made about the Life of Brian) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A new religion reigns in the West
"She 'envisaged that [her] book would be a bridge builder' between Islam and the western world."

Of course she did.

A new religion reigns in the West: "Diversity is Our Strength." No matter how many times we Westerners will be clobbered over the head due to this increasingly disasterous belief, we will need to reinterpret events to be compatible with our new religion, especially since so many of our policies now locked into place, like mass legal and illegal immigration, must be justified to maintain never-ending economic-population growth, as well as political correctness, a type of neo-McCarthyism. -- Cheerfully your, Tom Andres —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tma sierra (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Have we forgotten the 1st amendment? If we were to not publish anything offensive, then the libraries and book stores would be empty. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No censorship
Censorship is wrong. If a religious group, especially one that prides itself on peace, is offended they should go through legal channels.

Freedom of expression is a primary human right not for Americans, or Britons or Spaniards but for all humans anywher and everywhere.

Books should be published always regardless of content or perception because they offer alternate viewpoints than the narrow dogmatic ones humans so eagerly lap up by the millions like ravenous dogs that religions often peddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.101.132 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So many idiots here. One point for you all to remember, radicals exist in every religion and have no legitimate representative claim for any. 68.210.70.130 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Lympathy

 Unified login: Lympathy is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects. My active user-page is found at Wikipedia

title: User:Lympathy


text:
Fernando Alonso wins 2008 Singapore Grand Prix

September 28, 2008

Renault driver Fernando Alonso won the FIA 2008 Formula One SingTel Singapore Grand Prix on the street circuit at Marina Bay, Singapore.

This was the first nightly Formula One event that utilized artificial lighting and the 800th Formula One World Championship race overall. The previous GP at Singapore held in 1973 was not part of the Formula One.

The first part of the race saw the crucial failure of Alonso's teammate Nelson Piquet Jr., causing a safety car to appear, mixing up the drivers.

Nico Rosberg (Williams-Toyota) and Robert Kubica (BMW Sauber) were forced to pit while the entrance to the boxes was closed. This became both good and bad news, causing these drivers to gain a number of positions, but later lose some of them on a stop-and-go penalty. Still Nico maintained his second position up to the finish line.

Pole-sitter Felipe Massa (Ferrari) made a mistake upon exiting from a pit-stop due to the error of an electronic system used by Ferrari to control the pit-stop instead the ordinary lollipop. He made his way to the opposite end of the pit lane with a tail of the fuel hose fragment. It took time for the pit crew to run down his car and release Massa, who now became last from his first starting position. Later he was penalized by a drive-through penalty for this incident, which did not adversely affect him.

The other way round, safety car finally lead Alonso to victory gaining 14 places from the start, which he earned after an unsuccessful second qualification session.

Lewis Hamilton (McLaren-Mercedes) pushed hard on Rosberg trying to regain his second starting position, but finally came third.

Kimi Räikkönen (Ferrari) suffered an accident with five laps to go trying to overtake Timo Glock's Toyota and was out of the race. Glock finished fourth.

This allowed Sebastian Vettel (STR-Ferrari), the previous race triumphant, to gain one position and finish fifth.

Top eight was closed by Nick Heidfeld (BMW Sauber), David Coulthard (Red Bull-Renault) and Kazuki Nakajima (Williams-Toyota).

In the Drivers's standings, Lewis Hamilton extends his lead over Felipe Massa up to seven points and to twenty points over Robert Kubica. McLaren is now one point ahead of Ferrari and fifteen over BMW Sauber in the Constructors' Championship.


text: User talk:66.162.207.31

title: User talk:66.162.207.31


text:
Comments:Wikileaks claims news organisations pressured to remove articles on billionaire fraudster

so how is Obama involved? --66.229.17.181 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting question, if he even is. No-one seems to know. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

this is the kind of story that makes wikileaks great. keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.231.100 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Differing libel standards?
Interesting that, according to this article, Carter-Ruck's web site claims that "A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false or to prove that he has in fact suffered any loss. Damage is presumed." In the US, if you are considered a public figure, exactly the opposite is the case - in order to win a libel judgement, you must not only prove that the words are false, but also that the defendant _knew_ that they were false.

For example, in once case I'm familiar with, an abortion clinic operator claimed that the local anti-abortion group was making death threats against him. They sued for libel. The judge ruled that, as long as the provider sincerely believed he was being threatened, his claims could not be considered libel, since they were "public figures". Not only did they lose the suit, but they were forced to pay the provider's legal fees - even though they had demonstrated that they could not have made any of the threats the provider claimed they did! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Darrow (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC) \

That's the way it should be. Otherwise you have situations like with this French bastard who is attempting to subdue and erase all reports against him under the pathetic guise of "libel."


text:
Wales loses all BBC TV and Radio services

The British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) entire analogue, DTT and Satellite service was taken swiftly off air today for over 7 hours following a massive power failure at Broadcasting House in Llandaff, Cardiff. The outage hit at 10:30UTC this morning, and was further compounded by the fact that the building's back up generators failed to start, bringing the whole service to a total standstill.

BBC1 and BBC2's regional opt-outs for Wales were very quickly fed into another service, relaying BBC Northern Ireland for most of the day, while BBC Radio Wales fell silent. The Welsh language broadcasting service, BBC Radio Cymru had to switch to taking a feed from BBC Radio 4's long wave service until 17:05UTC, when service was restored, and BBC News and Sport interactive for the Principality went offline, with no updates throughout the day.

During this time, the BBC's main switchboard in London became jammed with callers, and BBC Information and BBC Reception Advice services had queue times up to 20 minutes to speak to advisors.


text:
Talk:Wales loses all BBC TV and Radio services

OR on this article (Iceflow)
Upon becoming aware of this incident, I started by making a call to the BBC Broadcasting House in Llandaff, Cardiff. This number was returning a message saying it was out of service - this was due to the power failure having affected incoming calls by knocking out the PBX and Switchboard for the building.

My first call was to an unlisted service I am a member of, which controls the transmission base across the UK and is run by Arqiva Broadcast, in Huddersfield. I advised them of this situation, and they informed me that they had only just become aware and were investigating.

A call was then placed to BBC Information in Belfast, who advised me of the cause of the service outage and the circumstances surrounding the incident. They also stated at the time of this call that they had no reasonable timeframe for the restoration of services.

I then called BBC Reception Advice, who advised that the services on analogue, Digital Terrestrial TV and Satellite were all out, and being rerouted via a Rebroadcast System (also known as an RBS), which meant that BBC1 and 2 were receiving RBS Feeds from BBC Northern Ireland, and BBC Radio Cymru was being simulcast with Radio 4 Long Wave, London. The BBC Radio Wales feed was out due to the number of Rebroadcasts already under way, causing an overload to the RBS.

I then carried out a scan of my Sky Satellite installation, confirming the details provided by the BBC, that Radio Wales was out of service, BBC Radio Cymru was carrying an RBS of Radio 4, and BBC TV was receiving continuity and attachments from BBC Northern Ireland, and news from BBC West of England.

Iceflow (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


text: User:Ipatrol

title: User:Ipatrol


text:
Vancouver-Kingsway riding is clash between NDP and Liberals

28 September 2008

In Vancouver-Kingsway, David Emerson's old riding, the Conservatives aren't considered to really be in the running; the real competition is between the Liberal's Wendy Yuan and the NDP's Don Davies with Green's darkhorse candidate presumed to be not in the front.

The history of the riding can, in some measure, be read in the parties fielding candidates; in addition to the four national parties there are contestants from Libertarian, Communist, and Marxist-Leninist parties. The rich diversity of the riding has less than half of all households reporting English as the first language at home.

Emerson cited this diversity after announcing he would not be running for a third term. "The reality is, Kingsway was an eminently winnable seat," said the Conservative Minister. "Not because I'm a hugely popular fellow in Kingsway, but because of vote splits and the way the first-past-the-post system works."

Key in those vote splits are issues dividing the Liberal and NDP candidates. Naturalized Canadian Yuan points to her immigrant history, giving her an empathy with the immigrant and ethnic neighborhoods of the riding. “I came with limited means but through hard work, I got recognized and became a successful businesswoman. I understand what immigrants have to go through to reach what they want.”

“I really respect and appreciate and like the multicultural fabric of our riding,” says her NDP opponent Davies. “That’s why I live in Kingsway. I’m the only candidate who lives here with roots here.” The Teamster's lawyer is originally from Edmonton, but has been living in Vancouver environs since 1991.

The Conservative party candidate Salomon Rayek is not responding to press inquiries from several sources, and is cited as an example of a long-shot candidate - a candidate with little likelihood of being elected yet represents the party anyway.

Doug Warkentin, the Green Party candidate, ran for Member of Legislative Assembly in BC's 2005 elections in the Vancouver-Langara provincial electoral district, coming in third to the Liberal's Carol Taylor. He's lived for the past three years in the riding, an engineer and small business owner who has a history of community involvement across south Vancouver. "I see the neighbourhoods in and around Kingsway as a great place to build on the natural vibrancy of the small business sector as a backbone for ethnically and economically diverse communities."

Matt Kadioglu of the Libertarians is a relative newcomer with one previous campaign, while Donna Petersen (Marxist-Leninist) and Kimball Cariou (Communist) each have four previous contests according to Pundits Guide.

The stage for this fight was set in 2006, when newly-elected Liberal Dave Emerson crossed the floor and directly into the Conservative Cabinet, first as Minister of International Trade then as Minister of Foreign Affairs following the resignation of Maxime Bernier. His defection stirred a firestorm of controversy locally in the staunchly left-leaning riding, which had elected a Progressive Conservative candidate exactly once since it's creation in 1953 - during the 1958 Diefenbaker landslide.

In 2004 then-Prime Minister Paul Martin parachuted Emerson in, displacing the brewing contest between incumbent Liberal Sophia Leung and Ms Yuan. Emerson won the riding against Ian Waddell, the NDP candidate who had represented the riding from 1979-1988, and again by a wider margin in 2006 when other Liberals fell as victims of the Sponsorship Scandal.


text:
Category:Canadian federal elections 2008

Articles related to the Canadian Federal Elections of 2008.


text:
User talk:216.118.68.193

Welcome
Welcome!

216.118.68.193, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikinews, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information (not even an e-mail address), and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

 * When using talk pages (the "collaboration" tab at the top of the page), or the comments pages (tab "opinions"), please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My name is User:Ipatrol

 * It might help if you logged in. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:216.118.68.193


text:
Talk:Fernando Alonso wins 2008 Singapore Grand Prix

 * The revid parameter on the above template is incorrect - it should be the revision id.
 * The time parameter is missing on the above template
 * The author is not a native speaker, this is not taken into account in either the review, possible changes by the reviewer, or constructive comments that might aid the author or someone else in finishing the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Ipatrol

Template:Inuse
See also Editing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please move all comments to the location of the redirect
Return coments will also be posted there.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Your work would be fine, if Wikinews accepted GFDL articles. It does not, so I am not going to undelete yet. Sorry, Anonymous101talk 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GFDL and CC-BY-SA are not compatible. Material cannot be imported from Wikipedia. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before accusing others of not being knowledgeable. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ipatrol


text:
SpaceX rocket successfully orbits on fourth attempt

September 29, 2008 Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) successfully launched and sent into orbit a Falcon 1 rocket, which was launched yesterday at 23:15 UTC from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.

This was the fourth attempt to launch this class of rocket, and the first vehicle to be successfully launched by private spacecraft developers. Previous attempts to launch this vehicle ended in failure due to engineering errors. Perhaps the most critical part of this flight occurred during the stage separation between the first and second stages of this rocket. In this flight, unlike previous attempts, the separation was without incident and the second stage maintained the planned trajectory into orbit. The rocket achieved an orbit at an altitude of 135 miles above the Earth after approximately ten minutes of powered flight.

The main technical difference between the third and fourth attempts was an adjustment in the timing between shutting down the first stage rocket engine and when the stage separation takes place. On the third attempt, the first and second stages collided into each other immediately after stage separation, which in turn damaged the second stage engine and resulted in a mission failure. For this fourth attempt, the stage separation occurred without any problem, and was greeted with loud cheers and applause by SpaceX employees who were watching a live telecast of the launch at the Hawthorne, California, USA manufacturing plant. This telecast was also released as a live video feed on the SpaceX website during the launch.

While other rocket companies have been successful at sending vehicles into orbit before, this is the first vehicle that has been designed from scratch without any components that came from previous government-sponsored vehicles. This is also the first privately developed liquid-fueled vehicle that has achieved orbit.

Elon Musk, founder, primary investor, and CEO of SpaceX, congratulated his employees upon reaching this milestone, saying "That was frickin' awesome! There's only a handful of countries on Earth that have done this. It's usually a country thing, not a company thing. We did it." He also said later on, "Definitely one of the best days of my life."

The payload of this rocket consisted of a 360 pound engineering test object made of aluminum, which was also fabricated by SpaceX in their Hawthorne manufacturing facility. Called the Ratsat, it was decorated with a logo of a rat by the SpaceX team that built it. Elon Musk estimates that it will remain in orbit for between five and ten years before burning up in the atmosphere.

Additional milestones accomplished by SpaceX on this flight included a successful deployment of parachutes on the first stage of this rocket, where SpaceX hopes to be able to recover this stage and be able to re-use that portion of the rocket on a future flight with some refurbishing. The second stage also performed an additional test by restarting its engine and moving to a higher orbit at between 300 to 450 miles (500 to 700 km) above the Earth with an inclination of 9.2 degrees, passing above the International Space Station during the maneuver.

"This is a great day for SpaceX and the culmination of an enormous amount of work by a great team," said Elon Musk, "The data shows we achieved a super precise orbit insertion—middle of the bull's-eye — and then went on to coast and restart the second stage, which was icing on the cake."

SpaceX is offering future flights of the Falcon 1 to the public for a price of about $7.9 million USD each, although Mr. Musk estimated that the total cost to test and develop this rocket, including the three previous failed launch attempts, came to about $100 million USD.

The next launch of the Falcon 1 is slated to happen sometime toward the end of the year, with a satellite that was manufactured and paid by the Malaysian government. Also scheduled for early next year is the maiden flight of the Falcon 9 rocket, which uses a multiples of nine rocket engines that are identical to the engine that was used in today's launch as well as many of the other components that were used on the Falcon 1. SpaceX is also under contract with NASA to develop a vehicle called the Dragon that will be supplying cargo to the International Space Station under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. This spacecraft is also intended to eventually be capable of manned spaceflight.


text:
Comments:Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action

Thought crime
More scientology DMCA abuse. If they've got nothing to hide why are they so litigious?

Only Part Of The Story...
Please note my additional commentary on AnonNewsWire in regard to this story: http://www.anonnewswire.org/pages/1.

Ollie, if you're so brave, why did you file anonymous DMCA claims against Shadow's video against accounts, namely Shadow's and mine, where you knew that people would fight back? I'd like Wikinews to ask him that. I think that should engender an interesting response. - QAnon

QAnon and his quick judgments
QAnon, why don't contact Schaper directly and ask him? Leave your ego off Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.195.196 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go
Again.--66.229.17.181 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Free speech
This man may be an advocate for Scientology's free speech, but free speech applies to ALL regardless of content. What about the rights of the videos' posters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.101.132 (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous can't even proof content
The major issue seems to be that Anonymous claims that their videos showed protesters while Schaper claims them to be personal attack videos. If Schaper is wrong he should burn in hell but Anonymous should apologize if he only cited attack-videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.195.196 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the fact that I am a Scientologist, none of the videos removed, where removed on behalf of the Church of Scientology or any organization associated with the church."
Does the original quote really say "where" instead of "were"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is exactly what he said, and how he typed it. Though I think a correction could be made. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Free Speech.
So it's fine to protect your own free speech by oppressing other's? Scientology is reaching new levels of bullsh*t. 195.10.114.211 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No...
Well, as seeing the video's myslef, I would have to say that most of them are not hate crimes. However, I do see how same may be viewed as hate crimes by Schaper. Anonymous is not trying to harm anyone, as displayed by our protests last year, we are trying to expose Scientology censoring information about themsleve's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.22.0.253 (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

this guy is full of rubbish. he'd love to have a one-on-one with us? we tried to discuss things with him and he wouldnt have it. he just kept getting more abusive. why cant he make up his mind about why he took the videos down, one minute its hate speech (which is not what dmca is for - using it for such is illegal) then its infringing his copyright (which its not). kick him in the teeth and tell him to fuck off.

Copyright
So what is if he owns a copyright on material in the videos? I searched Youtube for his videos and I sound some that have been on the site for a long time against him and he has not removed them. If somebody submitted a counter-DMCA notice we will now what is really going on and can stop the pointless speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.62.193.41 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

According To Oliver Schaper
Scientology teaches that advocating free speech means supporting or defending your beliefs by blocking an opposing view; Even if it needs to occur illegally.

Maybe a Scientologist could answer this, "What do you think it means when someone wants to learn the pro's & cons of ANYTHING; and that ANYTHING is preventing all criticism from being heard ?"

Actually I don't want an answer because I already know it, but please feel free to think about the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.46.75.100 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

also acording to scientology the holocost and 9/11 were orcistrated by the "psyks" http://gawker.com/5155157/scientology-proves-psychiatrists-caused-911 so keep in mind who we are dealing with. these guys are nuts! freaking nuts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FBI who?
Why does Scientology and its assorted nutters say this sort of tosh?

"The producers of these videos are based in the U.K. and local law-enforcement has been contacted by the FBI"

Contacted by the FBI? I sincerely doubt that the FBI has got nothing better to do with their time than get in contact with the UK police in order to prosecute these evil youtube users. When will they accept that the UK is an entirely unrelated country to the united states? We don't HAVE any of these "first ammendment" things.

The FBI can't do anything about things that happen in the UK, we don't pay them, we don't vote for the people who boss them about, and the laws of the US mean nothing when you're not in the US!

What's his doctorate in anyway? Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirronTM (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps his doctorate is in BSing, because he seems to be rather decent at it. --Smackdat (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology vs. Anonymous? No Contest.
The people that the scientologists are trying to subvert are the people who could pretty much control the internet if they had the inclination. By messing with us, he's just being moronic. Free Speech is FREE! Also, when will people in the U.S. learn you can't screw around with other country's material. They've tried this with TPB and 4chan, and now they're spreading into YouTube. There's just something wrong with a "religion" that has to copyright its symbols and ideas. Matt White (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal fight?
I just wonder if this is even an issue in which the Church of Scientology is involved because if one of their members contests material which may or may not be copyrighted he has every right to do so. I have seen the videos published by Anonymous and they have in deed Schaper as the only target. All videos with his image have been removed while others which just promote a critical text have not been removed. What happens if he is right and the photo used is indeed copyrighted? We're out to place judgment and still don't know all the facts.

In reference to free speech, we all know that you can't run into a Bank or the Airport and scream bomb (sure you can but it would be fun to watch you taken out by security). Free speech should remain free but should pure insults and attacks be protected as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.62.233.149 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Really Oskar?
Quote:

The videos in question have been produced by an YouTube (U.K.) user to directly attack me and my companies. I made the requests in accordance with YouTube's terms and condition, after confirming directly with YouTube and the local ECTF office in Los Angeles, to remove material that infringes on my copyright

at what point has your name been copyrighted?

Very interesting that Oskar/Oscar/Ollie Schaper would complain about any free speech issue when he is reputed to be involved in the porn industry.

Even more interesting that he is a Scientologist, one of the "most ethical people in the World"-group.

He does not own the copyrights to the material he complained about. Perhaps those that had videos removed should consider a class action lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsmistress (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
Can anyone who has actually seen the videos and has a decent understanding copyright law comment on whether there is likely to be any merit to the DMCA complaint? (In other words, was there anything in the video that may have been copyrighted by Schaper.) A lot of people are saying there isn't but I'm not convinced many of them actually understand copyright law (e.g. they probably don't understand the concept of derative works) Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schaper sounds like a freakin' crybaby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.133.241 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schaper is so full of it and so is scientology!
Anonymous hasn't broken any laws. I've seen seen the protest videos and they are indeed harmless. Its the Scionerds that drive their cars into them, pour water on them, steal their materials from them, ban them from entering fast food restaurants, and verbally and physically harm them. The only reason Scientology is taking legal action is because they don't want the public to be aware of what's really going on at their centers. These videos posted by Anonymous are evidence of what Scientology is really like and just goes to show that we really could do without them. Germany's giving them the boot, as well as France, Belgium, New Zeland, Australia, The U.K. is trying to get in on it, and even Spain is thinking about revoking their recently acquired religious status kicking them out. Its only a matter of time before the U.S. gets in on it, and Anonymous is playing a vital role in it. I say kudos to Anonymous and sincerely hope their videos are back up and running soon (which they no doubt will be given Scientology's inability to truthfully back any of their ridiculous claims) and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinigami (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 * "Anonymous hasn't broken any laws." As bad as the Scientologists are, Anonymous doesn't exactly have a squeaky-clean rep either. --Smackdat (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just going to make everything worse because it is the same thing that they did to start the revolt from Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.146.33 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.41.202 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Speech
You can talk hatefully if you want to. Church of Scientology is a sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.129 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be a doubting Thomas. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that the QRay doesn't improve your health 75%. The ions gradually remove hidden thetans from your wrists, DUH! --204.81.230.204 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from youtube?
I would be more than surprised if youtube responded. Difficult to get in contact with google in general. (maybe send a fax) Logictheo (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

He deserves it.
I say he deserves such treatment when he decides to screw around with Anonymous this way. If you don't like being attacked, then don't try to supress our right to freedom of speech with bullsh** DMCA claims through a bullsh** organization. —Raziel (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists are ratarded as fuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.156.207 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Scilons trying to stomp out free speech
Nothing new. DMCA takedowns are NOT legit because of the Fair Use act. which protects 99.9% of all the anti-scientology videos on youtube. Youtube is scientologys buttbuddy it seems. We put up incriminating stuff and they freak out and do evenything they can to keep people from seeing it. The same thing happend with the tom cruise video. Why cant scientology see that the more they try and censor that more people will cry out in protest? Why can't they see that what they face is not a group or assortment of likeminded individules but a LEGION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I think Anonymous has shown in..."
I think Anonymous has shown in the past and present that they like to control the Internet. Posting false statements or posting as somebody else would fit the Anonymous profile. —70.6.233.201 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
Talk:SpaceX rocket successfully orbits on fourth attempt

California Related
One of the reasons why I added the California category is that the bulk of the 550 employees of SpaceX happen to live and work in California, and it is something that significantly impacts the economy of particularly southern California in a rather big way. As to if this is something relevant in terms of actually happening in California, yeah, that may be debatable. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I dont disagree that SpaceX is in California. But this article is about the launch, which didn't take place there.  If the article was covering SpaceX specifically and just happened to mention they had a launch, I'd agree with that. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 03:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

 * In fairness about the sources... this is getting widespread original reporting from a broad base of tech-related journalists. I'm including the sources for independent verification of the information... and I'm not entirely sure which sources are "better" than others.  I could certainly use a little bit of help here rather than condemning the article due to "too many sources".  My heck, usually it is precisely the opposite kind of problem! --Robert Horning (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that having sources is good. Having a source or two more than you need, is fine.  Or linking to the launch log as a "Source" even though it provides no backing to the article - OK.  But Wikinews is not a news aggregation service. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This still isn't helping get the article published or helping Wikinews. No wonder Wikinews is getting stale.  --Robert Horning (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should note here that I believe having multiple sources (i.e. pull in all of the links that are original news stories) is something that is beneficial. Perhaps some of these ought to be moved to the talk page instead as deep background information (aka a "reporters notebook") rather than on the main article.  OK, I'll bite with that.  I'm asking for help here, not deep criticism and hoping for some collaborative effort on writing this article.  --Robert Horning (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea behind non-OR(non-original reporting) stories on Wikinews is to take news published by other organizations and average it out in order to remove bias. So when you list your sources you are saying, "I took things from each of these pages, and NPoVed them." You are not saying, "this is a list of all the stories on this subject". If you didn't use it as a source, then it shouldn't be in the sources. If you none-the-less feel the information in that link is useful to potential readers, but (for whatever reason) you decided not to include it in the article, then put it in an  ==External Links==  section instead of a sources section.

 * Now, that said, it is very difficult for one of us to go and remove non-sources after the fact, because we don't know which articles you used as sources. So, by necessity, the onus for making sure that the sources listed are actually used as sources is on the original author(s) of the article. I hope this explanation helps:). Gopher65talk 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I appreciate the help here.  I still think there ought to be a "reporter's notebook" or something that can list "all of the sources" you can come up with, even if they tend to repeat the same details.  And yes, I have been reading all of those articles I listed... which is one reason I fleshed out the article with considerably more detail after the fact.  I'm not so sure in this case I can call this original reporting or not, as I did watch the webcast of this launch as well, and have pulled in some details based on reading up on this company over the course of several years.

 * More to the point, rather than being so critical, thank you for helping me to sort through the references and pulling out the more credible ones, rather than just being negative about the issue. All in all I wish this would have been done as two stories:  One to throw up as a "news brief" and this one that is going into much more depth.  Next time I'll have to do better, I guess. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Poisonous was the one who removed those sources, so thank her for that;). As for the "news in brief" (probably in the form of a wikinews shorts article) followed by a more indepth story, I see no reason why that couldn't work, as long as the second story had something new to add — probably things like comments from the company, reaction to the launch, comments from the launchee (whoever had their cargo on board), etc. Also, if you feel you need immediate help with something, try logging on to the wikinews IRC. There are almost always people in there willing to help, at any time of the day. Gopher65talk 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image of the launch
I uploaded a photo of this launch to Commons: Image:Falcon 1 Flight 4 liftoff.jpg. Wronkiew (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for that. I was looking for an image for this article when it was written, and nothing really fit. Now we have an image of a Falcon 1 in flight just after liftoff:). That'll work great for the next article. Gopher65talk 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Template talk:HYS question right

Should the title be "Have your say..." with a proper ellipsis? Or is better as-is? Sherurcij 03:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Stray SPAN?
editprotected

After the ICON in the top row, second cell, a stray SPAN should be removed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. --Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Template talk:HYS question right


text:
Comments:Ontario Votes 2007: Interview with Communist Party candidate Johan Boyden, Toronto Centre

All communists should be arrested for treason and sentenced to an extensive rehabilitation process. The communist party should not exist in Canada. The fact that it does shows that we are in a very, very, dangerous situation with the struggling economy. If you vote communist, not only would I personally use violence to defend myself and the people, you must also prepare for hell on earth if you manage to get your wishes. The only good communist is a dead one. If rehabilitation does not work, these people must be executed for the good of the Canadian people and all that is good and just in this world.
 * To the guy above me, 65.92.40.156, who was too cowardly to sign his own comment. I wonder how people like you can pretend to value freedom and democracy when those you disagree with, who favor a different economic system but are using democracy and not force to try and bring it about, as they should, should be killed in your opinion. Your lack of education on communism is obvious--it's just an economic system. Disagree with it all you want, but threatening violence against those you disagree with is Fascist or Stalinist in principle. Yes, Stalinist. --Poisonous (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Janelle farvour

Janelle Farvour is a National award winning middle school English teacher from Sitka, Alaska. Featured in Who's Who in American Education as well as a National Honor Society recognized teacher, this teacher still lives and teaches in Sitka, Alaska, serving Alaskan youth since 1995.

title: User:Janelle farvour


text: User talk:Michellekamine

title: User talk:Michellekamine


text:
File:2008 09 29 YouTube Oliver Schaper.JPG

Fair use rationale in the article Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action
The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:
 * For use in the article Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action
 * 1) it does not affect the market for the work, if one exists, in any way;
 * 2) the purpose and character of the use of this work is educational and not for profit;
 * 3) I have not found a freely-licensed alternative;
 * 4) its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article.


text:
User talk:George32~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews. If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called George32. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name George32~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:George32~enwikinews


text:
Comments:Home of controversial book publisher set ablaze

Absolutely yes.

Should books that could be considered offensive to some religions still be published?
Of course they should. Christians, Jews and Muslims might consider books claiming the earth is more than 6000 years old, or that humans are descended from lower primates offensive but we need them. At one time the notion of a speroid earth or a heliocentric view of the universe was supressed as sacriligious by HRE. Granted fiction that imagines the thoughts and motivations of significant figures in a religious history are not quite the same but I hardly think that they stand a chance of toppling a faith that has stood for 1400 years. It is precisely because of islam's adoration of mohammed that percieved slights and criticisms cannot not hurt him.-Chris Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.72.194 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Books that could be considered offensive to some religions should be published. Dogma needs to be eroded from all sides in society. Publishing those books means exercising the most basic right in a free society - freedom of speech. When religion dominates what books can be published we will go back to the Dark Ages. If people think that religious sensibilities trump civil liberties, they do not belong in a free society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.148.237 (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah are all books that are considered offensive to some religions, namely each other's. Any book can be offensive to some. If religions are allowed to stifle or prevent the publication of books they find offensive, they are each other's most obvious targets. Any religion which wishes the freedom to make its own teachings heard must support this same freedom for dissenting viewpoints, or run the risk of being a target of censorship itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.5.80 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this question should read, "Should our news outlets stop pretending that radical Islam is not a big deal?"
The fact that wikinews even asked this question is silly. What? Is free speech up for debate because Muslims can't handle a little freedom without loading up a few fire bombs? Seriously, of course books that are offensive to religion should be published. The issue in this story is how it was reacted to by Britain's Muslim community. Remember the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie? He got a Fatwa put on his head. Remember Theo van Gogh, he was murdered. I'm not saying Islam is the only religion that has reacted violently to adverse thought, but Christianity got over that, for the most part, centuries ago. Yes, yes, I know, ninety percent of Muslims are moderates, and that's fantastic, but that leaves 10% of a billion people who think its a good idea to destroy and explode Judaism and Western civilization from the map. That's a hundred million people. It's a BIG freaking problem.

And by the way, humans will never escape Dogma, we just need to find some that everyone can agree upon. Even you Mr. Free thought, follow some kind of personal Dogma, I'm sure.

Check it:

http://jihadwatch.org/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020472.php

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010009.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.163.254 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of press, speech, and expression says yes.
If you believe in any or all of those freedoms, then yes, these books should be allowed to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they should be published. The whole notion of banning the publishing of books because it offends a religion is idiocy, it's our freedom of speech! Some people don't seem to understand that we don't live in a fascistic country that has relinquished our rights to speak our mind. As George Orwell once said, "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary."

Unfortunately, it seems that still holds true in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.247.140 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:HailFellow

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here are some pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 13:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Reviewing articles - how articles pass through editorial review
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:HailFellow


text:
Wikinews Shorts: September 29, 2008

Iceland nationalises second biggest bank Glitnir
Following an emergency meeting at the Central Bank of Iceland on Sunday night the Government of Iceland has acquired 75% of stock in Iceland's second largest bank, Glitnir, at the price of 600 million euros. Immediately following that the largest shareholder in Glitnir, Stoðir with around 32% stake, filed for a moratorium process. The domino effect will most likely continue down the chain of the interlinked Icelandic financial market.

title: Wikinews Shorts: September 29, 2008


text:
User:Smackdat

Don't mind my incoherence, I do so enjoy my daily ramble.

title: User:Smackdat


text: Talk:Wikinews Shorts: September 29, 2008


text:
User:Edgar181

I edit on the English Wikpedia as Edgar181.

title: User:Edgar181


text:
US House of Representatives rejects bail out bill in vote

September 29, 2008

The US House of Representatives rejected a bill on the 700 billion bail out of US banks. The voting on the bill has completed. If passed, the bailout plan would have allowed for the United States government to purchase devalued, resulting from the from troubled financial institutions. The US Treasury Secretary has said that the plan could cost up to $700 billion.

There has been considerable debate over several parts of the plan, which failed with 228 votes opposing, 205 supporting, and 1 not voting. The bill had much more support by the Democratic Party (with 60% of Democrats voting "aye") than the Republican Party (of which only 33% voted for the bill).

George W. Bush described the bill before the vote was made. "This legislation deals with complex issues, and negotiators were asked to address them in a very short period of time. I appreciate the leadership of members on both sides of the aisle, who came together when our nation was counting on them. Negotiations are sometimes difficult, but their hard work and cooperation paid off," he said, in a speech in which Bush begged politicians to support the bill.

Bush continued describing the bill. "The bipartisan economic rescue plan addresses the root cause of the financial crisis — the assets related to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the federal government will be authorized to purchase these assets from banks and other financial institutions, which will help free them to resume lending to businesses and consumers."

According to BBC News, congressmen opposed the bill after receiving 50 times as many letters against the bill as for the bill. George Bush attempted to respond to the criticisms of the bill by US citizens. "I know many Americans are worried about the cost of the bill, and I understand their concern. This bill commits up to 700 billion taxpayer dollars, because a large amount of money is necessary to have an impact on our financial system. However, both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be far less than that".


text:
Talk:US House of Representatives rejects bail out bill in vote

Verb tense
If someone has the time... the verb tense in this article are all over the map. According to the Style Guide articles need to be written in the past tense or present perfect tense - so "The US House of Representatives rejected a bill on the USD 700 billion bail out of US banks." not "The US House of Representatives has rejected..." "If passed, the bailout plan would have allowed..." rather than "If it was passed, the bailout plan would allow...", and so on.

Grammar counts in journalism. -  Amgine | t 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:US House of Representatives rejects bail out bill in vote

=Question One: Should the bill have passed? / Question Two: Why didn't the bill pass?=

Suprise!
I never thought in a million years that a Liberal congress wouldn't let a Conservative bill pass!!! Wow, all this sarcasm is killing me... --137.164.231.2 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd, the bill was not liberal or conservative, just bad. Members of the House, whether Democratic or Republican, voted against it because they believed they were putting their constituent's interest ahead of Wall Street.  It's not a surprise why many people believe that our government (Democratic and Republican party members alike) is owned by corporations.  b t 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The irony to your comment is the fact that over 60% of the Democrats voted for the bill (had it been up to them, it would have passed). The reason it failed was because of the Republicans, not the "Liberals".  Jade Knight (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to place the blame on one party or another - the bill simply failed to meet the expectations of many congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle. 700 billion dollars is nothing to juggle around carelessly, and while all of our congressmen surely understand this, they also understand that the bill is flawed in its current state. The bailout plan certainly needs to be revisited, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.115.129 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Suprise? Hardly
It,s unsuprising that congress voted down what was essentially adding 700 billion to te deficit. I belive the bill probably should have passed, but it failed because Congress was, understandably, nervous.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this bill should not have passed. It is not a government responsibility to be involved in private industry failures. It is time for the markets to make the proper adjustments. This vote affects my retirement and I am retirement age, however we will be a stronger economy because we did not provide an artificial solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.197.127.130 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

if it is passed there would be a surge in global financial markets tomorrow. but if it is passed, it would be irrational and illogical in rewarding the fat cats.

it was not passed because of the mounting pressure of the people on their representatives not to pass it. they did not want to bail out the business houses at the cost of tax payers' money.geyamala

“We the People” understand the economic situation our country faces today and tomorrow. We need leadership in this time of stress and uncertainty. We are Americans and believe as our founding fathers prescribed… Limited Government. The USA is a democratic-republic, not a socialist state. We believe in the Capitalist System with no or extremely limited government interference. The bill failed because the will of the people prevailed. If it doesn't kill you IT will make you stronger!

Joe Bilik, a proud American from Moseley, VA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.160.135.2 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

to whom reelection ma be a concern your #REDIRECT]]no vote was a very bad choice............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.56.193 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shock to me
Well Bush is a republican. I am surprised to see that the majority of republicans voted against the bill and democrats for. Usually its the other way around. I am glad it did not pass. Wallstreet does not deserve the money I earn every day at my job. They already steal enough of it as it is. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and this image says it all. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is beyond comprehension that the elected members of Congress would put their own selfish agendas ahead of the nation they are supposed to be serving. Rest assured, this completely irresponsible act will get you NO votes!!! Thanks to all of you, people are loosing their life savings, pensions & shortly to come their jobs since their companies can no longer funtion. Just how many people do you think are going to happy then that you voted 'NO' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.4.31 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Horrid proposal
Horrid proposal. The government buying all the bad assets of these large corporations is only going to make for a government in as bad shape as these corporations as well as freeing these corporations to repeat the same mistakes they have to get us to this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.161.177 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
I am glad this didnt pass, If this would have passed then the government could have bought out wall street and turned the US into a communist country. Just like when they wanted to make a North American Currency —Ub3rst4r (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Bush...
"The bipartisan economic rescue plan addresses the root cause of the financial crisis -- the assets related to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline." Funny, I thought it had something to do with banks giving away money they couldn't have reasonably expected to get back (even when they were in huge amounts) of debt and generally just throwing money around. Kind of like what this plan is doing, considering the deficit.

"I know many Americans are worried about the cost of the bill, and I understand their concern. This bill commits up to 700 billion taxpayer dollars, because a large amount of money is necessary to have an impact on our financial system. However, both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be far less than that". I really don't think he does understand (or just doesn't care), because no matter what happens to the financial institutions, the government has enough debt as it is, and if they don't break it even would be terrible. So much for the free market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackdat (talk • contribs) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"...both the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be far less than that." The Bush administration also thought that the "war on terror" would be over within six months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.77.11 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank *Insert deity here*
Hearing that this bill did not pass allows me to breathe easier. The mere fact that this was being proposed served to the stupidity of our government (my own opinion) but the rejection of such a bill is proof otherwise. It did not even remotely address the situation, which was that the banks actually made a poor business move, in making such high risk loans, and to bail themselves out of the money they lost, foreclosing the house that the money bought, on an already dying house market. Personal opinion on this is that if anything remotely related to this bill should pass, it is that we should bail out the people of the 700 billion dollars in debt we are. Not the companies. Also, I'm a Freshmen college student, and though this might have no direct impact on me for the next few years, it still infuriated me

-- Wing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.5.180 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:72.193.236.89

Welcome
Welcome!

72.193.236.89, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikinews, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information (not even an e-mail address), and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

 * When using talk pages (the "collaboration" tab at the top of the page), or the comments pages (tab "opinions"), please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Anonymous101talk 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:72.193.236.89