text:
Ford Taunus

The Ford Taunus is a family car that was sold by Ford Germany throughout Europe. Models from 1970 onward were built on the same basic construction as the Ford Cortina MkIII in the United Kingdom, and later on, the two car models were essentially the same, differing almost only in the placement of the steering wheel. The model line was named after the Taunus mountain range in Germany, and was first made in 1939, and continued through several versions until 1994.

Taunus G93A (1939–1942) / G73A (1948–1952)
The Ford Taunus G93A was a development of the Ford Eifel, and used the same 1172-cc four cylinder engine, but in a longer chassis and a streamlined body. It was the first German Ford to have hydraulic brakes. First introduced in 1939, production was halted in 1942 due to the war. Production recommenced in November 1948 after the British Occupation had ended. In total, 7,128 pre-war Taunuses (G93A) were made, including estate cars and light vans, followed by 76,590 post-war models (G73A).

Taunus M-series (1952–1968)
From 1952 to 1968, all German Fords were called the Taunus, using the model names 12M, 15M, 17M, 20M, and 26M (on some Scandinavian markets, for a short while the branding 10M was used on a slightly better-equipped export version of the early Taunus, which is said to be the precursor of later uses). The "M" is said to stand for "Meisterstück", in English "Masterpiece", but that word was found to be already registered by another German automaker. Taunus was also sometimes adopted as the brand name in export markets, particularly where British and North American Fords were also available.

The 12M, 15M, and 17M models had an engine, which in the first 12M was a carryover of the sidevalve (flathead) engine from the first Taunus series, and beginning with the 15M, it was replaced by an overhead-valve design similar to the British Ford Consul engine. With the introduction of the new 12M line (internal code P4) for 1962 came the V4 engine, which starting in late 1964 with the larger 17M/20M became the base engine for the Taunus M-series. The 20M and 26M models had the Ford Cologne V6 engine, which is basically the same engine design with two extra cylinders added. The 12, 15, 17, etc. numbers refer to the engine displacement; 1200, 1500, 1700 cc, etc. However, a few exceptions from that rule were made, such as 17M 1800, which was powered by the V6 in its smallest displacement of 90.777 L and the 20M 2300S (in the later P7 series), which used a 2.3-l version of the same engine.

From 1962 to 1970, the smaller models 12M (P4) and its successor 12M/15M (P6) had front=wheel drive. All other models had rear-wheel drive.

These models were offered:

First generation 12M (G13) (1952–1959), 15M (1955–1959)
The Taunus 12M presented in 1952 was the first new German Ford after World War II. It featured ponton styling, similar in style to British Ford Zephyr.

Something else the new Ford Taunus 12M had in common with British Fords was the retention of an old side-valve engine at a time when competitors were increasingly moving over to overhead-valve units. The Taunus 15M used a new and more powerful engine:
 * 12M: 1172 cc, 38 hp (28 kW), 112 km/h (70 mph)
 * 15M: 1498 cc, 55 hp (40 kW), 128 km/h (80 mph)

Body styles were two-door sedan, two-door station wagon, and sedan delivery.

Second generation 12M (1959–1962)
The second generation 12M was not a new car, but a reworking of the 1952 model. All cars were called 12M, though both engines were continued. The car with the bigger engine was called Taunus 12M 1.5-litre.

Body styles were the same as in the 1952 model.

Third generation 12M (P4) (1962–1966)
The new Ford Taunus 12M P4 was similar in size, but a completely new car based on the Ford Cardinal project: New body, new V4 engine, front-wheel drive. It was the first Ford car with front-wheel drive (second is Ford Corcel, third is Ford Fiesta). Engines available included:
 * 1.2 litre: 1183 cc, 40 hp (29 kW), 123 km/h (77 mph)
 * 1.5 litre: 1498 cc, 50, 55 or 65 hp (37, 40 or 48 kW), 135, 139 or 144 km/h (84, 87 or 90 mph)

Body styles were two-door sedan, four-door sedan, two-door coupé, two-door station wagon, and sedan delivery.

Fourth generation 12M (P6) (1966–1970), 15M (P6) (1966–1970)
The Ford Taunus P6 came with new bodies, whilst engines and platform were continued. The car with the bigger engine was now called 15M again. Engines available included:
 * 12M 1.2 litre: 1183 cc, 45 hp (33 kW), 125 km/h (78 mph)
 * 12M 1.3 litre: 1305 cc, 50 or 53 hp (37 or 39 kW), 130 or 134 km/h (81 or 84 mph)
 * 15M 1.5 litre: 1498 cc, 55 or 65 hp (40 or 47 kW), 136 or 145 km/h (85 or 90 mph)
 * 15M 1.7 litre: 1699 cc, 70 or 75 hp (51 or 55 kW), 153 or 158 km/h (95 or 98 mph)

Body styles were unchanged from the P4.

In 1970, the P6 was replaced by the Taunus TC.

First generation 17M (P2) (1957–1960)
Growing prosperity in postwar Germany encouraged Ford to offer a line of bigger and more expensive cars. The Ford Taunus 17M of 1957 was as long as (though significantly narrower than) the British Consul Mk2, but a different car. It presented a style similar to American 1955 Fords, featuring substantial (at least by European standards) tailfins. The transatlantic flamboyance of the car's styling gained it the sobriquet "Baroque Taunus", showing styling influences from the North American Mercury Monterey of the same time period. Unusually for middle-class German cars of this period, it was available with either two or four doors. The competition noticed, and from 1959, buying an Opel Rekord with four doors was possible.

The P2 used an overhead-valve (OHV) engine with 1698 cc and 60 hp (44 kW). A maximum speed of 128 km/h (80 mph) was quoted. A road test of the time commended the smoothness of the three-speed, all-synchromesh manual transmission system.

Second generation 17M (P3) (1960–1964)
The Ford Taunus P3 had a completely new body in a very modern style. The look of car reminded some critics of a bath tub, and it consequently gained the soubriquet "Taunus Badewanne". At a time when competitors boasted that all four corners of the vehicles were visible from the driver's seat, the new Taunus instead offered a streamlined form. However, in Germany the concept of streamlining in cars was associated with narrow passenger cabins reminiscent of the 1930s and of the still popular Volkswagen Beetle. The new Taunus, however, provided greater interior width than its predecessor, despite being no wider on the outside. Although the 1.7-litre version was launched with the same 60 PS power output as the outgoing model, the new model was a full 10 km/h (6 mph) faster, which was attributed to improved aerodynamics and a lighter body shell. The front end styling is reminiscent of the 1961 U.S. Ford Thunderbird and Lincoln Continental.

Three engine sizes were now offered:
 * 1.5 litre: 1498 cc, 55 hp (40 kW), 136 km/h (85 mph)
 * 1.7 litre: 1698 cc, 60 or 65 hp (44 or 48 kW), 138 or 140 km/h (86 or 88 mph)
 * 1.8 litre: 1758 cc, 70 or 75 hp (51 or 55 kW), 148 or 154 km/h (92 or 96 mph).

Third generation 17M (P5) (1964–1967), 20M (P5) (1964–1967)
The Ford Taunus P5 came with a new body and new engines. The 17M now gets a V4 engine: New 20M gets a V6 engine with 1.8 litres and 82 hp, or 2.0 litres (1998 cc) and 85 or 90 hp (63 or 66 kW) with a top speed of 158 or 161 km/h (99 or 101 mph). Again, it was a good selling car.
 * 1.5 litre: 1498 cc, 60 hp (44 kW), 140 km/h (88 mph)
 * 1.7 litre: 1699 cc, 65 or 70 hp (48 or 51 kW), 145 or 150 km/h (91 or 94 mph).

Fourth generation 17M (P7) (1967–1968), 20M (P7) (1967–1968)
For the new Ford P7, there was a new body; engines and platform were carried over from the P5. Rear lights were no longer mounted at corners. The 20M-model had a fake air scoop on the bonnet and a new, bigger engine.

The engines of the 17M/20M P5 were continued, with only one addition on the top end. It was the
 * 20M 2.3 litre: 2293 cc, 108 hp (79 kW), 170 km/h (106 mph).

Fifth generation 17M (P7b), 20M, 26M (1968–1971)
Shrinking sales of the P7 forced Ford to offer a restyled car only one year later, and the new car was again called P7. Rear lights again mounted on corners. Here, to avoid confusion, it was called P7.2, sometimes it is called P7b. The name "Taunus" no longer used.

The 26M, introduced in 1969, is the top-of-the-line version with a new bigger engine (2.6 litres), bigger brakes, dual headlights, power steering, and the most luxurious trim level. V6-engines were slightly revised. The engine programme is enlarged; now, two base engines (V4 and V6) in six displacement sizes and nine power stages are available:
 * V4
 * 17M 1.5 litre: 1498 cc, 60 hp (44 kW), 135 km/h (85 mph)
 * 17M 1.7 litre: 1699 cc, 65 or 75 hp (48 or 55 kW), 140 or 150 km/h (88 or 94 mph)
 * V6
 * 17M 1.8 litre: 1812 cc, 82 hp (60 kW), 153 km/h (96 mph)
 * 20M 2.0 litre: 1998 cc, 85 or 90 hp (63 or 66 kW), 155 or 160 km/h (97 or 100 mph)
 * 20M 2.3 litre: 2293 cc, 108 or 125 hp (79 or 92 kW), 170 or 180 km/h (106 or 112 mph)
 * 20M 2.6 litre, 26M: 2550 cc, 125 hp (92 kW), 180 km/h (112 mph), optional on 20M, but standard on 26M.

The Ford 20M RS Coupé was made in Germany as a (2300 S) P7b and (2600) P7b. In the 1968 London-Sydney Marathon, Ford entered three Ford 20M RS from Germany and Belgium. In 1969, a Ford 20M RS won the Safari and occasionally a Capri was seen with works involvement.
 * Ford 20M RS

This is the last specifically German Ford. In early 1972, it is replaced by the new Consul and Granada.

Taunus TC (1970–1975)

In 1970 a new Taunus, the Taunus Cortina (TC), was introduced. Ford offered a two- or four-door sedan or a five-door station wagon/estate (identified like previous Taunus estates as the Turnier). Between 1970 and 1975, for the first Taunus TC, a fashionable fast-back coupé was also included in the Taunus range.

This model also formed the basis of the Cortina Mk.III, but with different door skins and rear wing pressings from the "coke-bottle" styling of the Cortina. In addition, there was never a Cortina III equivalent to the fast-back bodied Taunus TC coupé. The Taunus TC and Cortina Mk.III were both developed under the auspices of Ford of Europe, and most major components including key parts of the bodyshell were identical.

Taunus TC2 (1976–1979) and TC3 (1979–1982/1994)

At the end of November 1975, in time for the 1976 model year, production began of the Taunus series "GBTS". The Taunus and Cortina Mk IV were in most cases now almost identical, apart from regional variations (in terms of specification changes and trim levels).

The Taunus TC along with the Cortina Mk III and their successors have been produced in slightly updated forms in Europe, Argentina and widely across Asia by Ford or their local co-operators. Cortinas were also built in small numbers starting with the predecessor Cortina Mk II throughout the model series' European/east Asian lifespan under license by Korean automaker Hyundai. This led to the Cortina 80 at the end of its production life serving as a starting point for the first Hyundai Stellar which succeeded the Cortina line in South Korea, handing over some major technical components such as the steering rack and the transmission propelling shaft to the otherwise non-Ford successor.

In 1982 production of the Taunus ceased in Europe; it was replaced by the Ford Sierra. The Sierra carried over the Cortina/Taunus OHC Pinto Engines and RWD configuration but was otherwise an all new car with independent suspension all round.

Production in Argentina and Turkey
The Taunus was produced in Argentina from 1974 up until the end of 1984, when the production assembly was sold to Turkey to manufacture the Otosan Taunus. The Turkish car, easily distinguishable because of its remolded front and back panels continued in production until 1994.

title: Ford Taunus


text:
Talk:Trademark

missing “third” in oldest
Currently says: “United States: there are at least three claims:” But only 2 are cited (Averill and Samson). 120.16.204.25 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)MBG
 * Agreed. I am changing to two. GrindtXX (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good edit; but I would be unsurprised if a third claim had been deleted somewhere along the way. Currently we have 1) the oldest registration, but under an act later found to be invalid as unconstitutional (thereby calling its legitimacy as a registration into question); and 2) the oldest registration still in use today. I would expect there to have been an entry for the first registration under a constitutional act, regardless of whether it is still in use. I bet it was there and removed some time ago. TJRC (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have lost that bet. The "third claim" was the Edgar Rice Burroughs registration of his "Tarzan" mark: . But that was in 1923, far too late to have been the first registration under a constitutional act (which was enacted in 1881). The mark is rather elderly, but is in no way in the running to be "oldest" under any definition. The "Tarzan" text now resides in the "Comparison with patents, designs and copyright" section, but it looks like when it was moved out, the "three" was not updated to "two"; GrindtXX's edit today fixes that.
 * Of course, now I'm wondering what the first registration under a constitutional act was. TJRC (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Obligation of enforcement?
The text currently claims: “A trademark owner doesn't need to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential.” Implicitly, this seems to implies that if the infringement is not minor, then the trademark owner is under obligation to sue the infringing party. Is that right? I find this strange. I have added a “citation needed” tag. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Fundamental concepts
The first paragraph of the "Fundamental concepts" declare that the trademarks indicates the origin of the goods. This was never correct, for example, when I buy a shirt with a polo player logo on it, it has not been made by Ralph Lauren Corporation somewhere in the US; it was most likely manufactured for the said corporation somewhere in East Asia. There are many marks related to trade, these are not all trademarks. A reference is needed, most likely the text will have to be changed. Викидим (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 * No, you're clearly wrong on that point. There are sources on this but I don't have half an hour to prepare full citations right now. This source stresses that identity of origin is at the core of European trademark law.  This source explains why the term "badge of origin" is so confusing because of how registered marks can be transferred or licensed in certain ways so that a mark may no longer literally identify the holder of the mark as the actual origin of the goods. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, historically the trademarks evolved from the maker's marks (or a factory mark). No, AFAIK, their meaning has changed since, as your source acknowledges, "may in fact communicate very little about the origin of goods". Compare this to our text, "The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the source or origin of products or services" (italics are mine). The particular polo shirt has a Ralph Lauren (RL) logo on it (registered to a US corporation), but it had been made in Vietnam on a no-name factory that probably simply has a contract with RL to produce these shirts. The "Usage" section gets it right: "A trademark identifies the brand owner of a particular product or service". Consumer brand owner in the modern world rarely has anything in common with the actual manufacturer. Викидим (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding Trademark Bob AI to the list of available online trademark search tools
The site www.trademarkbob.ai is an online trademark search tool like the others mentioned on the Trademark page (LexisNexis, Dialog, CompuMark, and Corsearch). I think that it is appropriate for it to be listed with the other trademark search tools mentioned on the page. Bjwalz (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia isn't a link directory, this isn't a place to add links or mentions of your search tool. MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Trademark


text:
Susan Travers

Susan Mary Gillian Travers (23 September 1909 – 18 December 2003) was a British nurse and ambulance driver who served in the French Red Cross during the Second World War. She later became the only woman to be enlisted in the French Foreign Legion, having also served in French Indochina, during the First Indochina War.

Early life
Travers was born in Kensington and spent her early years in England, the daughter of Francis Eaton Travers, a Royal Navy Admiral, and his wife Eleanor Catherine.

World War II
At the outbreak of World War 2, Travers joined the French Red Cross as a nurse. Later, she became an ambulance driver with the French Expeditionary Force in Finland in 1939. After the fall of France, she went to London and joined the Free French under de Gaulle. In 1942, she drove a medical doctor of the 1st Free French Division during Operation Exporter in Syria and Lebanon, during which the Allied forces invaded and seized Syria and Lebanon from the Vichy French. She served in the 13th Demi-Brigade of the Foreign Legion as a driver for the medical officer, where she gained the nickname "la Miss".

The 13th Demi-Brigade was incorporated into the 1st Brigade of the 1st Free French Division, commanded by Colonel Marie-Pierre Kœnig. Travers was assigned as the driver to Kœnig. They became lovers.

In May 1942, the 1st Free French Brigade was posted at Bir Hakeim, the southern end of the British Eighth Army's line at Gazala in Libya. As the Panzer Army Africa prepared to attack the British line, Kœnig ordered all women out of the area. The Axis forces attacked on 26 May, initiating the Battle of Gazala. Four German and Italian divisions attacked Bir Hakeim. Not long after, Travers joined a convoy into the rear area, and Kœnig allowed her to return to Bir Hakeim, as it seemed the Axis attack had failed. During the next two weeks, the Axis continued to attack, heavily shelling and bombing Bir Hakeim. During the bombardment, a shell tore off the roof of Kœnig's car. Travers, aided by a Vietnamese driver, fixed it on the spot immediately.

During the night of 11–12 June, 1st FF Brigade evacuated Bir Hakeim, with Travers driving Kœnig's staff car. The column ran into minefields and German machine gun fire. Kœnig ordered Travers to drive at the front of the column. Travers stated:

"He said, 'We have to get in front. If we go the rest will follow.' It is a delightful feeling, going as fast as you can in the dark. My main concern was that the engine would stall."

At 10:30 a.m. on 11 June, the column entered British lines. Travers' vehicle had eleven bullet holes, with a shock absorber destroyed and the brakes unserviceable.

Kœnig was promoted to general and left the North African theatre for higher command and a reunion with his wife. Travers, driving a self-propelled anti-tank gun, remained with the French Foreign Legion. She later served in the Italian Campaign and the Western Front (in France and Germany), during which she was wounded when she drove over a land mine.

Post-war
After the war, her military status was regularized. She applied to and was formally enrolled in the Légion Étrangère, as an adjudant-chef.

Travers served in Indochina. She married Legion Adjudant-Chef Nicolas Schlegelmilch, who had fought at Bir Hakeim with the 13th Demi-Brigade. In retirement, they lived on the outskirts of Paris. The couple is survived by two sons.

She waited for all the other principals in her life story to die before writing her autobiography. In 2000, aged 91, assisted by Wendy Holden, she wrote her autobiography, Tomorrow to Be Brave: A Memoir of the Only Woman Ever to Serve in the French Foreign Legion (ISBN 0552148148).

Decorations

 * Légion d'honneur
 * Croix de Guerre
 * Médaille commémorative 1939–1945 with clasp – "Afrique" – "Italie" – "Libération"
 * Médaille Coloniale, du mérite syrien de 4e classe
 * Croix de libération finlandaise
 * Officier de l'Ordre du Nichan Iftikhar
 * Médaille militaire

title: Susan Travers


text:
Bramsche

Bramsche is a town in the district of Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, Germany. It is about 20 km north of Osnabrück, at 52.4°N, 7.98333°W. Population is 30,952 (2018).

Subdivisions
In 1971/72 12 previously independent municipalities were included into the town.
 * Achmer
 * Balkum
 * Epe and Malgarten
 * Engter
 * Evinghausen
 * Hesepe
 * Kalkriese – site of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest
 * Lappenstuhl
 * Pente
 * Schleptrup
 * Sögeln
 * Ueffeln

Mayors
The mayor of Bramsche is Heiner Pahlmann (SPD), re-elected in 2021. He was first elected in May 2014 with 63.0% of the votes. His predecessor Liesel Höltermann (SPD) did not run for mayor any more.

Twin towns – sister cities
Bramsche is twinned with:
 * 🇵🇱 Biskupiec, Poland
 * 🇫🇷 Harfleur, France
 * 🇮🇱 Ra'anana, Israel
 * 🏴 Todmorden, England, United Kingdom

Notable people

 * Peter Urban (born 1948), musician, radio and TV host
 * Marieluise Beck (born 1952), politician (Alliance 90/The Greens), Member of Bundestag since 1983
 * Anke Hennig (born 1964). politician (SPD) Member of the Bundestag since 2021. worked locally as a taxi driver.
 * Filiz Polat (born 1978), politician (Alliance 90/The Greens)
 * Simon Tüting (born 1986), footballer, played 297 games

title: Bramsche


text:
Refining

Refining (also perhaps called by the mathematical term affining) is the process of purification of a (1) substance or a (2) form. The term is usually used of a natural resource that is almost in a usable form, but which is more useful in its pure form. For instance, most types of natural petroleum will burn straight from the ground, but it will burn poorly and quickly clog an engine with residues and by-products. The term is broad, and may include more drastic transformations, such as the reduction of ore to metal (for which see Refining (metallurgy)).

The refining of liquids is often accomplished by distillation or fractionation; this process is useful, for example, for isolating different fractions of petroleum. Gases can be refined in this way as well, by being cooled and/or compressed until they liquefy. Gases and liquids can also be refined by extraction with a selective solvent that dissolves away either the substance of interest, or the unwanted impurities.

Many solids can be refined by growing crystals in a solution of the impure material; the regular structure of the crystal tends to favor the desired material and exclude other kinds of particles.

Chemical reactions are often used to remove impurities of particular types.

The use of silicon and other semiconductors in electronics depends on precise control of impurities. The zone melting process developed by William Gardner Pfann was used to produce pure germanium, and subsequently float-zone silicon became available when Henry Theuerer of Bell Labs adapted Pfann's method to silicon.

Types of materials that are usually refined:
 * metals (see Refining (metallurgy)
 * petroleum (see Oil refinery)
 * silicon
 * sugar (see Sugar refinery)
 * flour (see Gristmill)
 * table salt
 * vegetable oil (see Food oil refinement for food use and Vegetable oil refining for biofuel use)
 * air
 * glass

title: Refining


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject German districts/Status page

de:Wikipedia:Wikiprojekt Deutsche Landkreise/Status

When you work on a district, you should add it to one of these lists (In Progress/Done). It will be easier then to control, if we have really covered all districts.
 * Watchlist

Done
(add articles here, when every element of the template has been applied to the page)

 * 1) Aachen (district)
 * 2) Ahrweiler (district)
 * 3) Aichach-Friedberg
 * 4) Alb-Donau
 * 5) Altenburger Land
 * 6) Altenkirchen (district)
 * 7) Altmarkkreis Salzwedel
 * 8) Altoetting (district)
 * 9) Alzey-Worms
 * 10) Amberg-Sulzbach
 * 11) Ammerland
 * 12) Anhalt-Zerbst
 * 13) Annaberg
 * 14) Ansbach (district)
 * 15) Aschaffenburg (district)
 * 16) Aschersleben-Stassfurt
 * 17) Aue-Schwarzenberg
 * 18) Augsburg (district)
 * 19) Aurich (district)
 * 20) Bad Doberan (district)
 * 21) Bad Duerkheim (district)
 * 22) Bad Kissingen (district)
 * 23) Bad Kreuznach (district)
 * 24) Bad Toelz-Wolfratshausen
 * 25) Bamberg (district)
 * 26) Bautzen (district)
 * 27) Bayreuth (district)
 * 28) Bentheim
 * 29) Berchtesgadener Land
 * 30) Bernburg (district)
 * 31) Bernkastel-Wittlich
 * 32) Birkenfeld (district)
 * 33) Bitburg-Pruem
 * 34) Bitterfeld (district)
 * 35) Bodensee
 * 36) Boeblingen (district)
 * 37) Boerdekreis
 * 38) Borken (district)
 * 39) Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald
 * 40) Burgenlandkreis
 * 41) Calw (district)
 * 42) Cham (district)
 * 43) Chemnitzer Land
 * 44) Cleves (district)
 * 45) Cloppenburg (district)
 * 46) Coburg (district)
 * 47) Cochem-Zell
 * 48) Coesfeld (district)
 * 49) Constance (district)
 * 50) Cuxhaven (district)
 * 51) Dachau (district)
 * 52) Dahme-Spreewald
 * 53) Darmstadt-Dieburg
 * 54) Daun (district)
 * 55) Deggendorf (district)
 * 56) Delitzsch (district)
 * 57) Demmin (district)
 * 58) Diepholz (district)
 * 59) Dillingen (district)
 * 60) Dingolfing-Landau
 * 61) Dithmarschen
 * 62) Doebeln (district)
 * 63) Donau-Ries
 * 64) Donnersbergkreis
 * 65) Dueren (district)
 * 66) Ebersberg (district)
 * 67) Eichsfeld
 * 68) Eichstaett (district)
 * 69) Elbe-Elster
 * 70) Emmendingen_(district)
 * 71) Emsland
 * 72) Ennepe-Ruhr
 * 73) Enz
 * 74) Erding (district)
 * 75) Erftkreis
 * 76) Erlangen-Hoechstadt
 * 77) Esslingen (district)
 * 78) Euskirchen (district)
 * 79) Forchheim (district)
 * 80) Freiberg (district)
 * 81) Freising (district)
 * 82) Freudenstadt (district)
 * 83) Freyung-Grafenau
 * 84) Friesland (district)
 * 85) Fulda (district)
 * 86) Fuerstenfeldbruck (district)
 * 87) Fürth (district)
 * 88) Garmisch-Partenkirchen (district)
 * 89) Germersheim (district)
 * 90) Giessen (district)
 * 91) Gifhorn (district)
 * 92) Goeppingen (district)
 * 93) Goettingen (district)
 * 94) Goslar (district)
 * 95) Gotha (district)
 * 96) Greiz (district)
 * 97) Gross-Gerau (district)
 * 98) Guenzburg (district)
 * 99) Guestrow (district)
 * 100) Guetersloh (district)
 * 101) Halberstadt (district)
 * 102) Hamelin-Pyrmont
 * 103) Hanover (district)
 * 104) Harburg
 * 105) Hassberge
 * 106) Havelland
 * 107) Heidenheim (district)
 * 108) Heilbronn (district)
 * 109) Heinsberg (district)
 * 110) Helmstedt (district)
 * 111) Herford (district)
 * 112) Hersfeld-Rotenburg
 * 113) Hildburghausen (district)
 * 114) Hildesheim (district)
 * 115) Hochsauerland
 * 116) Hochtaunuskreis
 * 117) Hoexter (district)
 * 118) Hof (district)
 * 119) Hohenlohe
 * 120) Holzminden (district)
 * 121) Ilm-Kreis
 * 122) Jerichower Land
 * 123) Kaiserslautern (district)
 * 124) Kamenz (district)
 * 125) Kassel (district)
 * 126) Karlsruhe (district)
 * 127) Kitzingen (district)
 * 128) Koethen (district)
 * 129) Kronach (district)
 * 130) Kulmbach (district)
 * 131) Kyffhaeuserkreis
 * 132) Lahn-Dill
 * 133) Landsberg (district)
 * 134) Landshut (district)
 * 135) Lauenburg (district)
 * 136) Leer (district)
 * 137) Leipziger Land
 * 138) Lichtenfels (district)
 * 139) Lippe
 * 140) Limburg-Weilburg
 * 141) Lindau (district)
 * 142) Loebau-Zittau
 * 143) Loerrach (district)
 * 144) Lüchow-Dannenberg
 * 145) Ludwigsburg (district)
 * 146) Ludwigslust (district)
 * 147) Lüneburg (district)
 * 148) Main-Kinzig
 * 149) Main-Spessart
 * 150) Main-Tauber
 * 151) Main-Taunus
 * 152) Mainz-Bingen
 * 153) Marburg-Biedenkopf
 * 154) Maerkischer Kreis
 * 155) Märkisch-Oderland
 * 156) Mansfelder Land
 * 157) Mayen-Koblenz
 * 158) Mecklenburg-Strelitz (district)
 * 159) Meißen (district)
 * 160) Merseburg-Querfurt
 * 161) Merzig-Wadern
 * 162) Mettmann (district)
 * 163) Miesbach (district)
 * 164) Miltenberg (district)
 * 165) Minden-Luebbecke
 * 166) Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis
 * 167) Mittweida (district)
 * 168) Muldentalkreis
 * 169) Munich (district)
 * 170) Müritz
 * 171) Neckar-Odenwald
 * 172) Neumarkt (district)
 * 173) Neuburg-Schrobenhausen
 * 174) Neunkirchen
 * 175) Neuss (district)
 * 176) Neustadt (Aisch)-Bad Windsheim
 * 177) Neustadt (Waldnaab) (district)
 * 178) Neuwied (district)
 * 179) Neu-Ulm (district)
 * 180) Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis
 * 181) Nienburg (district)
 * 182) Northeim (district)
 * 183) Nordhausen (district)
 * 184) Nordvorpommern
 * 185) Nordwestmecklenburg
 * 186) Oberbergischer Kreis
 * 187) Oberhavel
 * 188) Oberspreewald-Lausitz
 * 189) Odenwaldkreis
 * 190) Oder-Spree
 * 191) Ohrekreis
 * 192) Offenbach (district)
 * 193) Olpe (district)
 * 194) Ortenaukreis
 * 195) Ostalbkreis
 * 196) Ostholstein
 * 197) Ostprignitz-Ruppin
 * 198) Ostvorpommern
 * 199) Paderborn (district)
 * 200) Parchim (district)
 * 201) Passau (district)
 * 202) Peine (district)
 * 203) Potsdam-Mittelmark
 * 204) Prignitz
 * 205) Quedlinburg (district)
 * 206) Rastatt (district)
 * 207) Ravensburg (district)
 * 208) Rems-Murr
 * 209) Reutlingen (district)
 * 210) Rhein-Hunsrueck
 * 211) Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis
 * 212) Rhein-Lahn
 * 213) Rhein-Neckar
 * 214) Rhein-Pfalz-Kreis
 * 215) Rhein-Sieg
 * 216) Recklinghausen (district)
 * 217) Regensburg (district)
 * 218) Rheingau-Taunus
 * 219) Riesa-Großenhain
 * 220) Rosenheim (district)
 * 221) Rottweil (district)
 * 222) Saale-Holzland
 * 223) Saale-Orla
 * 224) Saalfeld-Rudolstadt
 * 225) Saarbruecken (district)
 * 226) Saarlouis (district)
 * 227) Saechsische Schweiz
 * 228) Sangerhausen (district)
 * 229) Sankt Wendel (district)
 * 230) Schmalkalden-Meiningen
 * 231) Schoenebeck (district)
 * 232) Schwaebisch Hall (district)
 * 233) Schwalm-Eder
 * 234) Schwarzwald-Baar
 * 235) Siegen-Wittgenstein
 * 236) Sigmaringen (district)
 * 237) Soest (district)
 * 238) Sömmerda (district)
 * 239) Sonneberg (district)
 * 240) Spree-Neiße
 * 241) Steinfurt (district)
 * 242) Stendal (district)
 * 243) Stollberg (district)
 * 244) Suedliche Weinstrasse
 * 245) Suedwestpfalz
 * 246) Teltow-Fläming
 * 247) Torgau-Oschatz
 * 248) Tuebingen (district)
 * 249) Tuttlingen (district)
 * 250) Uecker-Randow
 * 251) Uckermark
 * 252) Unna (district)
 * 253) Unstrut-Hainich
 * 254) Viersen (district)
 * 255) Vogelsbergkreis
 * 256) Vogtlandkreis
 * 257) Waldeck-Frankenberg
 * 258) Waldshut
 * 259) Warendorf (district)
 * 260) Wartburgkreis
 * 261) Werra-Meissner
 * 262) Westerwaldkreis
 * 263) Weimarer Land
 * 264) Weissenfels (district)
 * 265) Weisseritzkreis
 * 266) Wetteraukreis
 * 267) Wolfenbüttel (district)
 * 268) Zollernalbkreis
 * 269) Zwickauer Land

In Progress

 * 1) Barnim (coat of arms description missing)
 * 2) Bergstraße (history missing)
 * 3) Biberach (district) (history missing)
 * 4) Celle (district) (history missing)
 * 5) Kelheim (district) (history missing)
 * 6) Kusel (district) (no history)
 * 7) Mühldorf (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 8) Nordfriesland (no coat of arms yet)
 * 9) Nürnberger Land (no coat of arms yet)
 * 10) Oberallgäu (no coat of arms yet)
 * 11) Oldenburg (no coat of arms yet)
 * 12) Osnabrück (no coat of arms yet)
 * 13) Ostallgäu (no coat of arms yet)
 * 14) Osterholz (no coat of arms yet)
 * 15) Osterode (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 16) Pfaffenhofen (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 17) Pinneberg (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 18) Plön (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 19) Regen (district) (no coat of arms)
 * 20) Rendsburg-Eckernförde (no coat of arms yet)
 * 21) Rhön-Grabfeld (no coat of arms yet)
 * 22) Rotenburg (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 23) Rottal-Inn (no coat of arms yet)
 * 24) Roth (district) (no coat of arms, no geography)
 * 25) Rügen (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 26) Saalkreis (no history, geography quite short)
 * 27) Saarpfalz (no geography)
 * 28) Schaumburg (no coat of arms yet)
 * 29) Schleswig-Flensburg (no coat of arms yet)
 * 30) Schwandorf (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 31) Schweinfurt (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 32) Segeberg (no coat of arms yet)
 * 33) Soltau-Fallingbostel (no coat of arms yet)
 * 34) Stade (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 35) Starnberg (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 36) Steinburg (no coat of arms yet)
 * 37) Stormarn (no coat of arms yet)
 * 38) Straubing-Bogen (no coat of arms yet)
 * 39) Tirschenreuth (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 40) Traunstein (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 41) Trier-Saarburg (history and geography too short)
 * 42) Uelzen (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 43) Unterallgäu (no coat of arms yet)
 * 44) Vechta (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 45) Verden (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 46) Weilheim-Schongau (no coat of arms yet)
 * 47) Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen (no geography, no coat of arms yet)
 * 48) Wesel (district) (maybe not enough text yet)
 * 49) Wernigerode (district) (no history)
 * 50) Wesermarsch (no coat of arms yet)
 * 51) Wittenberg (district) (geography and history quite short)
 * 52) Wittmund (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 53) Wunsiedel (district) (no coat of arms yet)
 * 54) Würzburg (district) (no geography)


text:
The finger

In Western culture, "the finger", or the middle finger (as in giving someone the (middle) finger, flipping the bird or flipping someone off) is an obscene hand gesture. The gesture communicates moderate to extreme contempt, and is roughly equivalent in meaning to "fuck you", "fuck me", "shove it up your ass/arse", "up yours", or "go fuck yourself". It is performed by showing the back of a hand that has only the middle finger extended upwards, though in some locales, the thumb is extended. Extending the finger is considered a symbol of contempt in several cultures, especially in the Western world. Many cultures use similar gestures to display their disrespect, although others use it to express pointing without intentional disrespect. The gesture is usually used to express contempt but can also be used humorously or playfully.

The gesture dates back to ancient Greece and it was also used in ancient Rome. Historically, it represented the phallus. In the early 1800s, it gained increasing recognition as a sign of disrespect and was used by music artists (notably more common among actors, celebrities, athletes and politicians; most still view the gesture as obscene). In more contemporary periods, the bent index and ring fingers on each side of the middle finger have been likened to represent the testes.

Classical era

The middle finger gesture was used in ancient times as a symbol of sexual intercourse, in a manner meant to degrade, intimidate and threaten the individual receiving the gesture. It also represented the phallus, with the fingers next to the middle finger representing testicles; from its close association, the gesture may have assumed apotropaic potency. In the 1st-century Mediterranean world, extending the finger was one of many methods used to divert the ever-present threat of the evil eye.

In Greek, the gesture was known as the katapygon (κατάπυγον, from kata – κατά, "downwards" and pugē – πυγή, "rump, buttocks" ). In ancient Greek comedy, the finger was a gesture of insult toward another person, with the term katapugon also referring to "a male who submits to anal penetration" or katapygaina to a female. In Aristophanes's comedy The Clouds (423 BC), when the character Socrates is quizzing his student on poetic meters, Strepsiades declares that he knows quite well what a dactyl is, and gives the finger. The gesture is a visual pun on the two meanings of the Greek word daktylos, both "finger" and the rhythmic measure composed of a long syllable and two short, like the joints of a finger (— ‿ ‿, which also appears as a visual pun on the penis and testicles in a medieval Latin text ). Socrates called one who made the gesture "boorish and stupid." The gesture recurs as a form of mockery in Peace, alongside farting in someone's face. The usage is later explained in the Suda and included in the Adagia of Erasmus. The verb "to play the Siphnian" appears in a fragment of Aristophanes and has a similar meaning. The usage is once again explained in the Suda, where it is said to mean "to touch the anus with a finger." Diogenes Laërtius records how the Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope directed the gesture at the orator Demosthenes in 4th-century BC Athens. In the Discourses of Epictetus, Diogenes's target is instead one of the sophists.

In Latin, the middle finger was the digitus impudicus, meaning the "shameless, indecent or offensive finger". In the 1st century AD, Persius had superstitious female relatives concoct a charm with the "infamous finger" (digitus infamis) and "purifying spit" while in the Satyricon, an old woman uses dust, spit and her middle finger to mark the forehead before casting a spell. The poet Martial has a character in good health extend "the indecent one" toward three doctors. In another epigram, Martial wrote: "Laugh loud, Sextillus, at whoever calls you a cinaedus and extend your middle finger." Juvenal, through synecdoche, has the "middle nail" cocked at threatening Fortuna. The indecent finger features again in a mocking context in the Priapeia, a collection of poems relating to the phallic god Priapus. In Late Antiquity, the term "shameless finger" is explained in the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville with reference to its frequent use when accusing someone of a "shameful action."

United States
Linguist Jesse Sheidlower traces the gesture's development in the United States to the 1890s. According to anthropologist Desmond Morris, the gesture probably came to the United States via Italian immigrants. The first documented appearance of the finger in the United States was in 1886, when Old Hoss Radbourn, a baseball pitcher for the Boston Beaneaters, was photographed giving it to a member of their rival the New York Giants.

Use of this gesture in public, while vulgar, is not unlawful, as it is considered expressive communication protected by the First Amendment. In some cases, offended police officers who have had the insulting gesture displayed to them have stopped, ticketed, or arrested people for doing so. However, it is neither a crime, nor even probable cause to stop a person, and a police officer who does so violates "a clearly established constitutional right," and does not have qualified immunity if they do so, which means they can be sued for monetary damages for the unlawful stop and/or arrest. Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard 918 F.3d 494 (2019).

Canada
In 2023, in a ruling issued February 24 regarding a Canadian man who was accused of criminal harassment and uttering threats, Quebec court Judge Dennis Galiatsatos wrote, "To be abundantly clear, it is not a crime to give someone the finger," and, "Flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter-enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian. It may not be civil, it may not be polite, it may not be gentlemanly. Nevertheless, it does not trigger criminal liability." The accused man, Neall Epstein, was acquitted.

Early appearance in films
During a wedding sequence in one of Alfred Hitchcock's silent films, The Ring (1927), a misunderstanding results in the ringbearer giving the finger to another member of the wedding party, to comedic effect.

In the film Speedy (1928), Harold Lloyd's character gives himself the finger into a distorting mirror at Luna Park, about 25 minutes into the film.

Political and military use
The gesture has been involved in political events. During the USS Pueblo (AGER-2) incident, in which an American ship was captured by North Korea, the captured American crewmembers often discreetly gave the finger in staged photo ops, undermining the North Koreans' use of the images in their propaganda. The North Koreans, ignorant of what the gesture meant, were at first told by the prisoners that it was a "Hawaiian good luck sign", similar to the shaka. When the guards finally figured things out, the crewmembers were subjected to extremely severe beatings. Abbie Hoffman used the gesture at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Ronald Reagan, while serving as the Governor of California, gave the middle finger to counterculture protesters in Berkeley, California. Nelson Rockefeller, then the Vice President of the United States, directed the gesture to hecklers at a 1976 campaign stop near Binghamton, New York, leading it to be called the "Rockefeller gesture". In 1982, Pierre Trudeau, then the Prime Minister of Canada, gave the finger to protesters in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, earning the incident the nickname the "Salmon Arm salute". The gesture itself has also been nicknamed the "Trudeau salute". Former president George W. Bush gave the finger to the camera at an Austin production facility during his term as governor of Texas, saying it was "just a one-finger victory salute." Anthony Weiner gave the finger to reporters after leaving his election headquarters the night he lost the 2013 primary election for Mayor of New York City. During the campaign for the 2013 German federal election, the leading candidate of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Peer Steinbrück controversially gave the finger in a photo interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung 's Magazin supplement.

During World War II, the 91st Bombardment Group of the United States Army Air Forces referred to the gesture as the "rigid digit" salute. It was used in a more jocular manner, to suggest an airman had committed an error or infraction; the term was a reference to British slang terms for inattentiveness (i.e. "pull your finger out (of your bum)"). The "order of the rigid digit" continued after the war as a series of awards presented by the veteran's association of the 91st, marked by wooden statuettes of a hand giving the single finger gesture. In 2005 during the war in Iraq, Gunnery Sergeant Michael Burghardt gained prominence when the Omaha World-Herald published a photo of Burghardt making the gesture towards Iraqi insurgents he believed to be watching after an improvised explosive device failed to kill him.

The middle finger has been involved in judicial hearings. An appellate court in Hartford, Connecticut ruled in 1976 that gesturing with the middle finger was offensive, but not obscene, after a police officer charged a 16-year-old with making an obscene gesture when the student gave the officer the middle finger. The case was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which upheld the decision. In March 2006, a federal lawsuit was filed regarding the free speech issue.

Giving the finger has resulted in negative consequences. A Malaysian man was bludgeoned to death after giving the finger to a motorist following a car chase. A Pakistani man was deported by the United Arab Emirates for the gesture, which violates indecency codes.

People have given the finger as a method of political protest. At a concert, Ricky Martin gave a picture of George W. Bush the finger to protest the War in Iraq. Serbian protesters gave the finger to the Russian embassy regarding their support of Slobodan Milošević. Artist Ai Weiwei has used the finger in photographs and sculptures as a political statement. As a political message to the Czech President Miloš Zeman, Czech artist David Černý floated an outsize, purple statue of a hand on the River Vltava in Prague; its middle finger extended towards Prague Castle, the Presidential seat. Černý had also mounted a middle finger on a pink former Soviet tank from the Monument to Soviet Tank Crews in 1991. In 2011–2012, the pink tank with the finger was displayed again on a barge on the Vltava.

In 2017 Juli Briskman gave the finger to the motorcade of Donald Trump as it drove past her while bicycling, and a photograph that went viral forced her to resign from her job as a marketing executive. However, the notoriety may have been favorable in her 2019 election to the board of supervisors for Loudoun County, Virginia.

On February 24, 2022, the first day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian missile cruiser Moskva attacked Snake Island as part of the 2022 Snake Island campaign. The Ukrainian border guard Roman Hrybov's last communication with the warship was "Russian warship, go fuck yourself". This was memorialized on a set of Ukrainian commemorative postage stamps on April 12 with the text "Russian warship, fuck you!" and a drawing of a Ukrainian soldier presenting the middle finger to the Russian cruiser.

In popular culture

The use of the middle finger has become pervasive in popular culture. The band Cobra Starship released a song called "Middle Finger", and released a music video that showed people giving the finger. Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan installed a marble statue of a middle finger measuring 11 m, located directly in front of the Milan Stock Exchange. A now-famous photograph of Johnny Cash shows him giving the middle finger to a photographer during a 1969 concert at San Quentin State Prison, released as At San Quentin. However, the photo remained fairly obscure until 1998, when producer Rick Rubin made it the centerpiece of an ad in Billboard criticizing country radio for not giving airplay to Cash's Grammy-winning album Unchained. Cameron Diaz made the gesture during a photo shoot for Esquire. Harold Lloyd shot the finger to his own reflection in a Coney Island funhouse after getting paint on his suit in Speedy, his final silent feature, from 1928.

Athletes, including Stefan Effenberg, Ron Artest, Luis Suárez, Virat Kohli, Juan Pablo Montoya, Iván Rodríguez, Danny Graves, Jack McDowell, Natasha Zvereva, Josh Smith, Bryan Cox, and Johnny Manziel have been suspended or fined for making the gesture. José Paniagua was released by the Chicago White Sox after giving the middle finger to an umpire; he never played in the majors again. Baseball executive Chub Feeney once resigned after giving the finger to fans on Fan Appreciation Night. Bud Adams, owner of the National Football League's Tennessee Titans, was fined US$250,000 for giving both middle fingers to the fans of the Buffalo Bills during a game. Professional wrestler Stone Cold Steve Austin is also famous for flashing one or both middle fingers as part of his gimmick. Hockey star Jaromír Jágr made the gesture several times following goals in the early 1990s.

The NME Awards, an annual music awards show in the UK, uses an extended middle finger design in the trophy handed out to the winners. Many musical artists, including Madonna, Lady Gaga, Eminem, Ariana Grande, Katy Perry, and Adele have publicly made the gesture. Britney Spears and Iggy Azalea have given the gesture towards members of the paparazzi, but had to apologize when fans interpreted the gesture as directed at them. M.I.A. gave the gesture during the Super Bowl XLVI Halftime Show. The National Football League, NBC, and M.I.A. apologized. The CD itself for Kid Rock's album Devil Without a Cause is a picture of his raised middle finger. On the cover of Moby Grape's first album, Moby Grape, band member Don Stevenson was caught flipping the bird at the camera. The finger was airbrushed out of subsequent releases of the album.

In automobile driving culture, giving the finger to a fellow motorist communicates displeasure at another person's reckless driving habits and/or their disregard for common courtesy.

The finger is included in Unicode as, part of the Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs block.

The media sometimes refers to the gesture as being mistaken for an indication of "we're number one", typically indicated with a raised index finger. Sometimes, though, the "mistake" is actually an intentional euphemism meant to indirectly convey the gesture in a medium where a direct description would be inappropriate. For example, Don Meredith famously noted in a 1972 Monday Night Football game describing the finger of a dejected Houston Oilers fan: "He thinks they're number one in the nation." Ira Robbins, a law professor, believes the finger is no longer an obscene gesture. Psychologist David Walsh, founder of the National Institute on Media and the Family, sees the growing acceptance of the middle finger as a sign of the growth of a "culture of disrespect".

Google Street View's picture of the area around the Wisconsin Governor's Mansion, taken in 2011 during the tenure of Scott Walker, shows a jogger giving the finger in the direction of the mansion.

Similar gestures

In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, the V sign, "two-fingered salute" or "the fingers", when given with back of the hand towards the recipient, serves a similar purpose. According to a Royal Shakespeare Company synopsis of the play Henry V, a "two-fingered salute" appeared in the Macclesfield Psalter of c. 1330 (in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge), "being made by a glove in the psalter's marginalia". George H. W. Bush, former President of the United States, accidentally made the gesture while on a diplomatic trip to Australia.

In countries where Spanish, Portuguese or French are spoken, and especially in Spain, Portugal, Brazil and France, the gesture involving raising a fist and slapping the biceps on the same arm as the fist used, sometimes called the bras d'honneur (French), corte de mangas (Spanish), manguito (Portugal), dar uma banana (Brazil), or Iberian slap, is equivalent to the finger.

Italy, Poland and countries under the influence of Russian culture, such as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, also see it as equivalent to the finger, but the majority of young people in these countries use the finger as an insult, which is associated with the Western culture.

More commonly in Turkish or Slavic regions, the fig sign (also known as nah or shish) serves as the equivalent to the finger, meaning "you won't get it" or "in your dreams". The gesture is typically made with the hand and fingers curled and the thumb thrust between the middle and index fingers. This gesture is also used similarly in Indonesia, Turkey and China.

In Japanese Sign Language, this same gesture (with all fingers curled inward except the middle one) means the following: elder brother (hand moving up), younger brother (hand moving down), and siblings in general (one hand moving up, one moving down). This comes from a childish name of the middle finger, o-nii-san-yubi ("big-brother finger"), as opposed to o-tō-san-yubi ("dad finger", the thumb), o-kā-san-yubi ("mom finger", the index), o-nee-san-yubi ("big-sister finger", the ring finger) and aka-chan-yubi ("baby finger", the pinky). The equivalent words for sisters are expressed with the pinky. In the Japanese manual syllabary, the middle finger (with the front of the hand facing forward) stands for the kana せ (which, incidentally, is also an archaic word for "brother").

title: The finger


text:
User talk:RK/Archive

This is a prophecy about the future fates of two ethinic groups, but not about the individual fates of specific people. The Jewish tradition holds that the fate of individual Arabs and Jews is not predestined in any way. I wonder if you are using the word "predestinaion" in a way that other English speakers do not use it? It seems to me that you are using this word as a general description of any form of visions of the future. However, I have only seen this word used to describe it when God is said to predetermine an individuals' fate before they are born, which is a different concept. RK

 * I hope that all of these rhetorical questions aren't irritating. I'm struggling to understand.  These are decisions concerning divine intentions toward people not yet born, which are then carried through.  It appears to me that prophecy also involves predestination: not necessarily in the sense of a future after death, but surely in the sense of Israel's status and the promise that the blessing of God for the other families of the earth is destined to come through Israel.

 * None of these fascinating questions are bothersome in the slightest! RK

It's in order to make room for ideas such as this, that I think that the article on predestination needs to be made more inclusive and not focus, to the exclusion of comparable ideas, on a small segment of the Protestant Reformation. I do not think that it is factual to imply that only the Calvinists have an idea of a God capable of infallibly declaring the future lot of anyone: particularly since the Calvinists derive this notion from the Jewish Scriptures. To escape that erroneous idea, I think that the entry would be improved by including Judaism in the fuller explanation of what is meant by predestination: either as the very thing, or at the very least a comparable idea -- mkmcconn 9/17/2002, Tuesday 10:44 AM

Hi RK, I looked at Holocaust Theology briefly -- this week is very busy for me -- and it looks good. Personally I'd like to see more detail on people like Rubinstein and Fackenheim. I may try to contribute although my knowledge of these areas is way way out of date. I remmeber a French theologian writing something about silence, I do not know if I am able to retreive his name.

I do think there is a larger issue: to what extent people see the Holocaust as unique or not. My sense is that a lot of Jewish "Holocaust" theology does not claim the Shoah is unique, and in fact do not call for a specifically (or unique) "Holocaust" theology, but rather use the Holocaust to recover earlier Jewish responses to suffering, such as Kabbalah, the notion of Tikun Olam, and Zionism -- all these things existed prior to the Holocaust but were able to claim greater significance after. I do not know, I hope I am not babbling, I gotta run but will go over the page more carefully later. Good work, though! Slrubenstein PS can you work on the COnservative section of "segments of Judaism" -- I really don't like it, and your comments on the now archived talk page seem much better, Slrubenstein

RK, please take it easy, dude. This is not a murder trial. Also, I would appreciate you did not remove comments you made after others have answered them. It makes other people's replies to you seem out context and is, as far as I am concerned, a demonstration of lack of integrity. I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia, and I encourage you to be respectful of others, and stand behind your words. Oh, and another thing. When there is a paragraph break in my comments, it's because I meant for a paragraph break to be in my comments ;) Christopher Mahan

I left you a query on the Messiah talk page, about the source/date/copyright status of what you added. Mostly, it needs cross-refs outside Wikipedia sorted out, and spelling and abbreviations identified and modernized. Thanks. Vicki Rosenzweig

You wrote the following in talk:Israel:

 * You are merely inserting a biased anti-Israeli polemic into an article which has nothing at all to do with that particular topic. This is inappropriate behaviour in the Wikipedia community.

Where do you get off lecturing others about "inappropriate behavior"? Do you know how many complaints I've gotten about you? If you think a POV is not neutral -- or worse, is simply incorrect -- you don't need to launch a demeaning diatribe. Just slip in one of the standard POV markers, such as Many Palestinians believe that or According to an official statement by Mr. X of the Arab League (or Mr. F of the PA) I hate to take you task, but I really must insist that you stop driving away newcomers with your abrasive comments. --Ed Poor

 * Lir is accussing the Jews in Israel of being mass-murdering racists She is filling this encyclopedia with anti-Semitic hatespeech...and you defend this?! I take great offense at your behaviour. You have crossed the line on this issue. For shame. RK

 * See my rejoinder a few paragraphs below... --Ed Poor 15:19 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

 * RK, although she may have couched her words improperly, Lir merely pointed out that the Israeli government's policy toward the residents of the territories conquered in 1967 was considered by some around the world as genocidal in spirit if not in practice. I personally think this is not correct, yet this is a widely held opinion by millions of people and so deserves to be aired. She pointed out that she is Jewish by ancestry (at least) and that should be enough for you to consider that she hersel or members of her family may have lost loved ones or suffered a great deal during the second world war.
 * Besides, many IDF soldiers are openly criticising the israeli military's practices in the occupied territories, and many newspaper articles and television newscasts are reporting on this, so she does have a solid basis for saying what she is saying. Christopher Mahan

 * You are talking about criticism. Lir is talking about branding all of Israel's Jews as mass-murderers out to exterminate the Arabs in the same way that the Nazis murdered the Jews. Just as I am not offended by your analysis, I am offended by hers. You are pointing out criticisms; that is not anti-Semitic. Lir is merely venting rage at Jews. In other words, it seems to me that you are not describing Lir's beliefs or actions. You are describing what you wish she had written. RK

Hey, RK. Like you, I don't think Lir is Jewish, nor do I think she is a little girl, or a woman for that matter. I do think it is someone who is trying to see how far they can push the buttons of the people working here. Like you, I reject the remark that was inserted, though I am willing to have Ed's compromise--in fact, I stopped removing the remark once that compromise was inserted, even though I still contend while such a comment, while possibly valid, is certainly in the wrong place on the page. Still, I am very hesistant about condemning people as anti-Semitic, even though I have seen the occasional example of that here too. In this particular instance, I think the correct phrasing would be "misinformed," particularly with regard to what genocide really means. It's a term that's bandied about far too often, diminishing from the potency of what real genocide is, whether it is committed against Armenians, Jews, Cambodians, Bosnians, or Hutus. Nor do I think this is intentionally an act of evil. Just today in New York's Holocaust Museum, I I heard the attack on the Twin Towers described as "genocide." I thought then that the remark was ill-informed, and I think Lir's use of it now is too. Personally, I think it is more the result of the hyperbole and sensationalism of the popular press. I would therefore argue that using the term here is inappropriate since we should rise above those standards at Wikipedia. I certainly think a valid argument can be made for Israel's policies being racist (a valid argument is not one you necessarily agree with, but one based on facts rather than hype). I certainly think that should be brought up in the article. The question is, as I said above, more one of how and where. Other than that, please be careful of using the term anti-Semitism. Wen used to loosely it loses it effectiveness in real instances of anti-Semitic rhetoric. Danny

 * accusing the Jews in Israel of being mass-murdering racists She is filling this encyclopedia with anti-Semitic hatespeech...and you defend this?! I take great offense at your behaviour. You have crossed the line on this issue.

As I tried to explain elsewhere, there is a big problem with the term genocide. Two major changes, which many people (including me) object to are:
 * 1) excluding politically motivated mass-murder, e.g., if Mao kills 20 million Chinese it's not "genocide" any more; ditto for Stalin's Ukranians & Pol Pot's Cambodians;
 * 2) including non-lethal meanings, like forced re-settlement

The suffix -cide is supposed to mean killing, specifically, murder -- but partisans like to change words around for partisan advantage. I think Lir is innocently using the changed meaning of genocide and will continue to think so until proven wrong (benefit of the doubt).

Also, let's not confuse "opposition to Israel's military or political policies" with anti-Semitism, okay? I bristle at the thought that you might be branding me as "anti-Semitic". --Ed Poor

RK, you wrote this unfriendly message on Mirsa's talk page, and I think it looks better here than there.

Mirsa, the Israel, Palestinian and Middle-east entries are complex issues that needs to be discussed in a calm and neutral point of view (NPOV) fashion. Instead, you currently are inserting an anti-Israeli polemic into an entry. This is inappropriate behaviour in the Wikipedia community. You need to read up more on the entries on NPOV, and you absolutely must read the already extant articles on this issue: You appear unaware that your claims and related isues are already are discussed in great detail, both in Wikipedia entries on Israel, Palestine, and in their associated Talk pages. There is no need to start a flame war by starting the entire thing all over again in yet another article. This topic already is discussed in more than place. When I see someone trying to start shoving this into yet more articles, I can only wonder at their purpose; nothing good can come of this. Please stop your current attempts, and try to work on the academics in the same way that other contributors here do. Work on the topic in the appropriate article, as we already are doing, and please try to remove any traces of anti-Israeli polemics, Ok? RK

 * Telling a newbie "there is no need to start a flame war" sounds like the first volley in a flame war, in my humble opinion. Let's try not to scare away another contributor before we've had a change to introduce NPOV.
 * I thought a lot about this yesterday, and even this morning while commuting. We need to find a way to accommodate the views of those who consider Israel illegitmate, without endorsing or condemning those views.

Let's face it, Israel's existence is controversial: most of the Arab world wants to delegitimize and destroy Israel. We can't ignore that.

 * Are you sure? I've travelled in the Arab world and, while I encountered a lot of hatred towards Israel, I never heard a call for the destruction of Israel (except by _really_ fundamentalist people who behaved almost crazy). I heard a lot of Israel denying fundamental human rights to the Palestinians and Israel ignoring international law and about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, though. But this is only my personal impression I got from talking to people, maybe you have better sources for your statement. --Elian

 * I believe your reports of the "man in the street" encounters you've had. Nonetheless, the 3 wars and the insistence on creating a 2nd Arab state in Palestine certainly look like a desire to destroy Israel. --Ed Poor

I hope we don't have to write something like "Israel's very existence is highly controversial, see X" at the beginning of every article relating to Israel. But if we have to, we will. It's better than harassing hapless newbies.

Please don't condemn new users, until and unless they've had a reasonable amount of time to learn NPOV. Say, a week? Or 3 warnings from a sysop? (I'd rather make it 7 :-) --Ed Poor

RK, thank you for amending your remarks to C. at the R.W. talk page. Such a magnanimous display of humility will go a long way toward engendering the collegial atmosphere we all strive for. --Ed Poor

--- RK, would you or others who watch your Talk page, who help you with the articles on Judaism, be able to help with my question on Talk:Torah about "dictation" theory? I had been under the impression that this theory was peculiar to some groups, not generally accepted either by modern or ancient Judaism. Am I mistaken about that? Thank you, and your collaborators, for the quality of your work which in my opinion is consistently informative and helpful. — Mkmcconn

Could you explain why you have removed the information that certain groups see the Saudi government as a puppet regime? Why have you made changes in the name of NPOV only to define certain definitions of terrorism as merely polemical? Vera Cruz 17:12 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

 * I don't follow you. No sane person seriously believes that disagreements about relationships are the same thing as mass-murdering civilians. I understand that many Arabs have a seething hatred of Saudi Arabia; many also have a seething hatred of the US. They thus hate the fact that these nations have a relationship based on common economic, military and political goals. For my own reasons I also am against this relatioship. But no sane person can say that the Saudi's (or the US) are committing "terrorism" because they disapprove of their choice of allies. Making such a ludicrous statement is a irrational, and makes words have no meaning at all. I happen to disagree with you on certain issues - so shall I now label you a "terrorist", and say that your postings I disagree with are acts of "terrorism"? Of course not; that would be a violently hateful thing to do. RK

 * It just so happens that I believe that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist nation, but not because of its alliance (on paper only) with the US. Rather, I accuse them of terrorism because they have funded Osama Bin Ladin's Al Qaeda terrorist group to the tune of nearly 300 million dollars, which has been used to mass-murder civilians in the United States, Israel, Africa and Yemen. The word terrorism should be reserved for crimes against humanity, not relationships that you happen to disagree with. RK

 * I believe the US is a terrorist nation. Not because of it's alliances, but because it actively commits acts of terrorism. I believe this is what the Arabs are referring to as well. Vera Cruz 18:22 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

RK, I'm not taking sides on the Palestinian article, even though I'm a bit upset to see my careful reworking, um, messed up by the new anonymous writer.

But I think you'll have better results if you make a series of small changes, rather than one large revision containing many changes. Let's try to work with and see what happens. Okay? --Uncle Ed

RK, please stop using the material from Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism. As I noted in the Richard Wagner talk page, it contains some copyrighted material. I haven't updated that article because I think it shouldn't even exist, but I have reworded and expanded the material in a previous edit of Richard Wagner. That material is currently in limbo at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Wagner&oldid=472480. The best thing to do now is probably to resolve the Clutch problem first. -- CYD

 * Understood. Clutch is a vandal, plain and simple, and is riding roughshod over the consensus of everyone else. Unless he is banned, it appears as if the Wikipedia moderators approve of his vandalism. As I have told them before, Wikiepdia is doomed to failure as long as it is a forum for the most obnoxious people, who seem to have infinite amounts of time to waste on copy-editing wars. If the Wikipedia moderators refuse to be responsible in banning vandals and anti-Semites, then they only have themselves to blame for the mess they have gotten themselves into. RK

From one Islamic preache I had heard that the hatred between Jews and Arabs does not necessarily involve religion and that they have been enemies ever since Abraham's children. Does it involve the process of evolution and natural selection? (competition amolnst those for the stronger to prosper) Secondly do Zionists actually beleive that their homeland is Israel or could it be anywhere in which they can live by their laws THANK YOU

 * Yes, there is an element of sociological evolution in the competition between many different religion; this would include Judaism and Islam. The same faiths compete for people's belief, and over time, in certain areas, one faith predominates. It is an intellectual form of natural selection. This does not mean, of course, that the more popular faith is true. It means that it was able to gather more adherents. As to your second point, throughout all of history Jews have tried to go back to their ancstral homeland in Israel alone. In the 1800s there was one brief point where a minority of Jews considered a homeland in other countries. The extreme Reform Jews taught that Germany would be their new Zion; and a tiny percent of the secular Zionists stated that they would accept a temporary Jewish homeland anywhere, even in Africa. However, both of these proposals were eventually rejected by the Jewish people. No Jewish community accepts these views today as valid. RK

 * An intellectual form of natural selection is often called memetics. Sorry for bothering you if you were already aware of that, but other readers may be able to benefit from the link.  -- Alan Peakall 18:14 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Wow, now we are really off-topic. But that only makes us -on-topic, for a different subject... :)  Thank you for bringing this up; This concept is precisely what I was alluding to. I'm not well-read on memetics, but the basic idea seems both valid and compelling, and I have used this idea myself when studying the history of religion. RK

Please check out the article Semitism and my comment on the talk page, Slrubenstein

-

RK, please do not overuse the term vandalism and the ViP page. There are other pages such as Votes for NPOV that can be used for fixing broken articles. But vandalism is stuff like the obvious page blanking, crapflooding or more subtle changes to articles that entirely change their meaning. --Eloquence 00:25 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I too considered deleting the Judeocentrism page. The reason I did not was I did a google search and came up with 25 hits -- not a lot, but people use the term.

You should also know for what it is worth that the anti-semitic elements were NOT written by Stevertigo, but by another contributor; in fact, they had an edit war with Sv deleting the anti-semitic content, and the other one restoring it.

I have a suggestion -- just think about it for a while. Keep the article, but contribute to it as an exploration of one particular anti-semitic claim. This is such a persistent claim that there might be real value to an article analyzing the way it is used (under what conditions, to what ends) and in what ways it distorts Jewish beliefs. Slrubenstein

 * Oh, I agree. And I don't have a problem with a discussion of Judeocentrism, within the greater context of ethnocentrism. (No greater example of which exists, perhaps, that Yehuda Halevi's "The Kuzari", which has a point of view that many people today would consider racist towards non-Jews.) Hundreds of different cultures and faiths exist, and various forms of ethnocentrism have existed within them, and this can and is a valid topic for a serious encyclopedia entry. It just the present contributors and their particular agenda that I find so odious...and transparent. I encourage scholarship. Just not the fiction-based hatchet job that was being pushed at the present. RK

Okay RK -- I still say you were unfair to Sv. Like him or not, he did not write the anti-semitic stuff on the Judeocentric page, and in fact he deleted clearly anti-semitic content when he saw it. Now, I do not want to give you apoplexy, but have you followed the recent work of Martha? I made a change to the Khazar page -- do some digging and you will se what she added which I deleted. I have checked some of her other recent contributions and I DO believe that in some cases she has made valuable, NPOV additions. So wield your axe strategically, haver, Slrubenstein

RK, I disagree with you on reverting Palestinian exodus. I don't think the current version is NPOV. -- Zoe

 * Disagreement is one thing. That is Ok by me. But Marth's wholesale censorship of pertinent facts, especially from the Arab point of view, seems irresponsible to me. Martha is pretending that the Arab views of the 1990s and 2000s are the same as the Arab views of the 1940s and 1950s. That is not only wrong, but I would hold deliberately deceptive. I don't mind of other people take a crack at NPOV that article at all. And it would be informative to see how the Arab POV changed. I just disagree with the inappropriate form of historical revisionism that Martha pushes. RK

 * Ah yes, ye presumes to speak, once again "from the Arab point of view." How... considerate. Though I note your tone is improving - perhaps approaching reasonability. I offer you an olive branch. "Dont let it fall..."-Stevert

RK, you are still using the term vandalism in NPOV disputes. This is not acceptable. Please stop it. --Eloquence 15:21 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Eloquence, you are wrong. This was not a NPOV dispute. This was a question of fraud. Someone cannot write deliberate lies, and pass them off as facts. That, by definition, is' vandalism. In this case, someone was unahppy with the historicla facts: Many Palestinian leaders have repeatedly andpublicly stated that the peace process with Israel is only a temporary measure, and that heir final goal is the elimination of Israel.  Well, being unhappy with this mainstream Palestinian position does not give anyone the reason to lie about it, and state the precise opposite. That is fraud and deceit, and vandalism is the only word to describe it.  How would Wikipedias feel if I rewrote the entries on George W. Bush, and falsely claimed that he has always been against having a war in Iraq? People would scream bloodly murder, and rightly point that out as vandalism. This isn't about NPOV. It is about substituting fantasy for history. RK

 * The problem is that you assume a malicious motivation -- I see little evidence that supports this assumption. Quite possibly, the person in question thinks that these statements are obsolete, only held by a small minority etc. This may be wrong, but before you assume deliberate distortion (and I agree with you that Clutch did this in several cases, but these changes were made by Tool), you should first assume that there is simply a different POV, talk to the user, ask for his reasons and try to cooperate with him. As Ed called it, "write for the enemy", understands what the "enemy" thinks, and help him get this view represented without violating NPOV.

 * The term vandalism should only used in the most extreme cases. It is a call for authority to step in and enforce consequences. I doubt that you really wanted this to happen in this case, so please acknowledge that you stepped over the line, and try to be a little more careful. This is a hot topic, and it's not very helpful to keep pouring fuel into the fire. --Eloquence 15:58 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Robert, would you please cool it? I support your quest for NPOV, and I can appreciate that the situation often appears to be one of everyone ganging up against you. However, edit-comments like the one I'm quoting below have a tendency to drag the level of discourse down below the minimial standard of collegiality we need to work together. Even though the Bible does say, "An eye for an eye" try to imagine the consequences of carryout that law literally. :-(

 * Deleting this non-NPOV page. Any person who denies the existence of anti-Semitism is an anti-Semite themselves. Stop using Wikipedia to obsess about the Jews, and imply that they are all liars.)

For the next couple of years, at least, you can be sure that Wikipedians will continue to question the existence of anti-Semitism. Calling them names won't change their behavior, any more than calling Castro a "scruffy, two-bit dictator" will get him to respect human rights in Cuba. We need more light and less heat: "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness." --Uncle Ed 15:40 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * It is true that anti-semites will continue to attack Jews, and simultaneously deny that anti-Semitism exists. But so what? It is also true that bigots will attacks blacks and hispanics in much the same way. Again, so what? Should we stop exposing such bigotry? I don't follow your point.  And no one here is "cursing the darkness". Frankly, no one will ever light a candle unless they admit that they are in the dark. No one will fight anti-Semitism and bigotry until they admit it exists and confront it. RK

 * Martin| stated that anti-Semitism should only be used for intense anti-Jewish prejudice, "to the point of genocide", and that it shouldn't be used to refer to milder forms of prejudice. RK and Slrubenstein disagreed, feeling that it was entirely right to talk of non-genocidal prejudice as anti-Semitism as one might be similarly broad in using terms like racism. Martin later apologised for overstating the case, but maintains that it is an emotionally charged word that should be used sparingly.

 * Someone with more patience than I should take this up with Clutch, on Talk:Henry Ford. He seems to be under the impression that because Ford did not advocate killing Jews, he wasn't an anti-Semite, and that only weird, "academic" definitions of anti-Semitism allow us to consider him an anti-Semite. E.g.:
 * Yet, the commonly understood implication of the word anti-Semite is that the target of the epithet would have supported the gas chambers and death camps of Nazi Germany. (User:Clutch)

 * and:

 * By calling Henry Ford an anti-Semite, you are violating NPOV by making a moral judgement about someone, instead of providing information so that the reader can make their own informed decision about the matter. But far worse, you are using a word in an academic way in a popular context where the words meaning has emotional baggage and innuendos that paint a dramatically false and misleading picture of the man under discussion.
 * If this were a scholarly publication in a field where anti-Semitic had a clear, well defined meaning, I would support your use of the word anti-Semite to describe Henry Ford. But it isn't. The Wikipedia is an international project to provide an encyclopedia to the public at large. That means using language that they can understand, instead of deceptive terms that only make sense to academics. (User:Clutch)

 * Graft

--

Welcome, RK - great entries on Judaism! The format is a little idiosyncratic (external links inserted in the body of the article). I understan why they fit there given the way the articles run right now, but external links are usually clearly (and physically) separated from wikipedia content. I linked up some things in Zohar, for instance. I don't know it there's an entry for Kabbala yet, but there ought to be, and Zohar should be linked to it. Again, welcome! --MichaelTinkler

RK, could I make a format suggestion? when you're responding to a single Talk segment (e.g., Palestine, your responses to SKissane), it's easier to follow if you go to the end of what you're responding to and do it in one segment (indented is best! that's really obvious - just start your first line with a colon and it'll indent) or indent a response after each of the other person's paragraphs. I personally practice the former, since it doesn't do as much violence to the flow of that person's written statement. I agree with you about the points of millenial-old variants of Judaism; we can CALL them Judaism, but the one that lasted is it. I have similar problems with people equating Gnostic sects and the Catholic church, myself. --MichaelTinkler

RK -- I am too tired to make the necessary changes myself with any confidence that I wouldn't be making things worse. BUT I have to point out one thing about your most recent (and I think very good) addition to the Arab Anti-Semitism page: Not all Arabs are Muslims (and not all Muslims are Arabs). No doubt, a good deal of Arab anti-Semitism is justified through the Koran, plus the Koran provides a very important historical source. But not only is it important to point out that this book will incite non-Arabs (I think Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, and few if any are Arabs, and alas anti-Semitism is a problem there) -- I think it is REALLY important not to suggest that you (or Wikipedia) thinks that "Arabs" and "Muslims" are the same. I do not know if the easiets thing is to have a separate entry, "Anti-Semitism in the Koran," or to rewrite your contribution so it is clear that the Koran is one source of anti-Semitism for many but not all Arabs... SR

 * I was just thinking the same thing. Many Arabs are Christians (2%, 5%, more?), a tiny percent are are of the druze faith (though they rarely refer to themselves as Arabs). In the western world a small number of Arabs are likely Unitarians, deists, humanists and atheists. And as you point out, a large number of Muslims are not Arab. Perhaps the current title of the entry should be re-titled "Islamic anti-Semitism"? I will not change the name of the entry today, to see if any other useful name suggestions come up. RK

RK I appreciate your addition ((to the entry on Karl Marx)) but I modified it. First, I moved it to open the section on criticisms of Marx. But I also rewrote it. I think it is an improvement, and hope you don't think I am just being possessive of the article -- you make an important point. I hope that in changing it I did not violate your intention, or undermine it. SR

 * Its an improvement. I really know very little about Marxism; all I can say is that its proponents only really seem to make their case by attacking straw-men. They look at the worst possible abuses, and claim there are only two choices - an anarchized form of unregulated capitalism, or a Marxist paradise. Frankly, I think their absolute belief in the divine truth of their arguments, combined with fanaticism and straw-men arguments against other systems, reveals that they are not atheists, nor are they merely proposing an alternate economic model. Marx, in fact, is a new Buddha, if not a god, and Marxism is a geunine religion in every sense of the word. After all, he is judged by his most devout followers as being infallible, and his texts are treated much like religious texts. This is how Marxism is discussed in "The Concise Encyclopaedia of Living Faiths", Ed. R. C. Zaehner, Beacon Press, 1959. See the last chapter "A New Buddha and a new Tao". Jungian philosophy is also identified as becoming a religious, rather than a scientific, philosophy. If I understand correctly, many others also have pointed out that the followers of Marxism, in practice, took on the behavioural characterisitics of adherents to a faith system.

 * I am glad you think it is an improvement. FYI what you state above is one reason why many people, including myself, do not like the word "Marxist."  I think you are right that there are some people who treat "marxism" like a religion -- in fact, this was encouraged in many ways by Stalin (both in and out of the USSR).  I do not think Marx himself encouraged this.  Moreover, there are a tremendous number of people todoy who have been influenced by Marx (theoretically or politically) but who are by no means dogmatic.  A number of people reject some of what Marx wrote while appealing to other things that he wrote.  Are they Marxists?  Orthodox (i.e. dogmatic) marxists would say no.  And I think that's just one reason that the word "marxism" is of little value.  Few physicists today are strict Newtonians, yet most still rely on a good deal of what he did, and admire him.  I think you can find plenty of similar examples with students of Marx.  SR

RK thanks for the invite to work on what will surely be an immportant article. For the moment, I would be happy if you wanted to cut and past things I wrote in the talk section of other articles. I am a little too tired right now to think of how to begin such an article, especially out of context. I think it raises huge issues beyond specifically religious tolerism, and I hope it goes in those directions. In the matter of polltiics and civil-rights, how would the US government protect the rigths of people who do not believe in civil rights, for example. I know Stanley Fish has written on this and I am sure many other socila nd political theorists of whom i am ignorant; I really hope so poplitical theorists -- political scientists/philosophers/lawyers also contribute to this. I look forward to watching it grow, and contributing when I know I have something valuable to add, SR

RK, I have embedded my responses to your responses to my initial comments on the pluralism article inthe Talk section of that article. I hope you find what I wrote useful -- and I have to apologize, because although I am expressing some strong opinions I still don't feewl ready actually to make changes in the article. I am sorry that this puts something of a burden on you, but I do appreciate what you have been doing, SR

Hi RK, I don't want to clutter up or involute the religious pluralism talk page more, so let me just reply to your most recent comments with a couple of quick points: You ask, "SR, You write "What I mean is this: to me, this account of Judaism makes Judaism (at least according to some people at one time) non-pluralistic." In what way do you mean this? Judaism in many eras didn't grant other religions the same respect that it gave itself (and I think often for good reason)." I guess this goes to my point that we need to distinguish between a variety of pluralisms. To me, the strongest pluralism is entirely relativist (there is no absolute truth, all truth-claims are relative). I think this is different from people who claim "my system is better than yours, but yours still has some validity (especially when if converges with what I think!). And I think this second position is different from those like the one I was responding to, like "only Judaism was true."  This seems to me to be inherently non-pluralist, but I will now admit that one could perhaps come up with a kind of pluralism that will make room for this statement and competing statments like "only Christianity was true" or "only Islam was true."  I think it would take more work than the first kind of pluralism!  Again, I am asking you to do more work, but I wish you could explore these three (or are there more?) kinds of pluralism, both abstractly, and as they may or may not be found in different varieties of Judaism.

One other point I want to make -- I am no Wittgenstein expert, but I do not think he backed down from his position. But I do think a lot of people misinterpreted his position, thinking that the word "game" necessarily means it is trivial. The Roman gladiators played games in which they died, and today people make and lose fortunes over games. I think Wittgenstein meant something else by "game," I think he meant it in the sense that there were rules that determined what constituted an intelligible (let alone effective) action. Thus, the rules for football and soccer are different -- in soccer you just cannot hold the ball and run with it, if you did you would be penalized and some people would think you were just nuts. But I think LW understood that different language games could have very very serious consequences.

 * Yes, very much so. See Talk:Knowledge for a few good exmples.  EofT

I do think you and I agree on a lot of things; I hope you take most of my comments not as criticisms (I don't think you do) but as suggestions about things you could clarify or expand on in the article. Perhaps you think some of the things you have written in response to me on the talk page is evident in the article itself. A main point of my comments is that I think some points are in the article, but could be made more explictly or developed. Anyway, good job! SR

RK, I appreciate the position you have taken on anti-semitism and anti-zionism, but would like to make two suggestions (I hope you don't mind -- since you know more about this topic than I, and have done much of the work on it, I'd prefer to let you decide how to work this in, if you think my suggestions are reasonable).

First, I think it is important whenever introducing the anti-zionism=anti-semitism issue to define zionism clearly and succinctly. I know this risks over-simplifying, but I have recently discovered that many people really do not know what "zionism" means, at least to Zionists (i.e. the Jerusalem Program). My sense is, it means that there should be a Jewish state, and that the Jewish state should be a center for the Jewish community as a whole and not just Israeli Jews. Many people believe, on the other hand, that zionism is a rabid form of nationalism that considers non-Jews to be inferior (I think). I realize that you could argue that this itself is a sign of anti-semitism or the result of anti-zionist propaganda. My point is simply that in introducing the word in any new context, it is worth providing a brief definition.

Second, I think it is important to distinguish between anti-Zionism as such, and any specific criticism of the Israeli government or Israeli society. One can oppose the occupation of the West Bank without being an anti-zionist. I think it is important that readers know that the equation "anti-zionism = anti-semitism" does not mean that "any criticism of Israel = anti-semitism."

granted, these fine points will not matter much to anti-semites. But I really do believe that there are many out there who do not want to be anti-semitic, but are very critical of certain Israeli policies, and are confused. I think these two suggestions will help them, at least. SR

 * Wow. Every one of these points is a good one. I have therefore (hopefully, with your approval!) "stolen" your ideas here and worked them into the main article on Anti-Semitism. Take a look when you get a chance, and see what you think. These clarifications are most important, and I thank you for pointing them out; this will help illuminate the issue to Wikipedia readers.  RK

 * RK, I just looked at your recent changes to the Anti-Semitism page, and they seem to be very clear and I hope helpful. We'll see -- anyway, I like the changes you just made, SR

Hello RK, I don't know if you have followed the recent discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict on the mailinglist. I see many of the pages as biased, as most others do, too. Therefore I started a Arab-Israeli conflict editing project (currently participating Uriyan, Ed Poor and me). There's much need for a general discussion how these pages need to be modified, so I invite you to state your views on this and help to work this out. greetings, --Elian

I just saw that you did some modifications to the article on Israeli settlements, where you removed a lot of essential qualifiers. I'd ask you to reflect on this change. It brings in a lot of POV. --Elian

I presume you do know that Dietary Fiber is rumoured to be the latest in the long line of Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason personas. I'll still deciding should we call them the Children of Lir after an Irish fable or Adam's family after the original father of this master race of trolls. In any case, after being helpful and polite (mostly) for three or four days, Dietary has returned to the bad ways of his Lir, Vera and Susan days. *sigh* Oh well. I suppose we'll have to ban this one too and wait for the next installment. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:40 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Susan is being her usual irritating self while surprise, surprise Dietary Fiber has now gone to ground. At this stage, I think we have to request that both Susan and Dietary Fiber be banned. They are the same page and their on idolatry was outragous. And that was just one page. I'm really fed up of this Adam clan and their behaviour. I am thinking of suggesting on the wiki-list that they be banned. Any views? STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:08 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)~

Good news, RK, your old pal Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber is back. Well there is a very strong suspicion based on the edits of a 'new' user, their behaviour and in particular a comment put on 172's take which was pure SM/DF (an attempt to stoke up a dying row by picking up on something that even the original proposer had abandoned and insisting it was correct in a sentence written in the first person singular, using almost identical words, tone, attitude as SM/DF when they were trying to stir up trouble.) The user is called Shino Baku. So far this person kept 172 under siege on one page he wrote (SM had a particular 'thing' about 172's work). But I would not be at all surprised if the 'new' user visits some of SM/DF's other 'haunts', the pages you do a lot of work on. So beware and be warned. ÉÍREman 02:37 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I hate to keep dragging you into this, but after I posted additional comments to J, Eloquence made some comments and restored much of the article Supernaturalization -- could you look it over and see if you agree or disagree with Eloquence? Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:35 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems clear from the above that you have general problems discerning racism and colonialism in other contexts. Likely being an American makes you also prone to scientism. You should reflect on this cultural bias of yours. It is now fairly clear why you wish to establish knowledge as something which derives either from authority or scientific method, and why other ways to approach knowledge are degraded by you, as part of your other beliefs in a hierarchy specific to "your people" (Jews, Americans, scientists, "settlers"). You will not be permitted to hijack articles with these views. It is time for you to reconsider your attempt to do so. EofT

Thanks for the note. I think that the debate between scientists and their critics from social science and the humanities is pretty complex -- in that there are in fact different distinct critiques, and there are also political differences (left/right) which really do not and should not have anything to do with the matter at hand, and they often all get jumbled up. I shink Eclecticology is right that it might merit an article of its own -- although I think there already is an article on the Sokal Affair. Perhaps the way to proceed is to work on seperate articles (focusing on specific controversies, like the Sokal Affair), and then have a short article introducing them and providing links... Slrubenstein™ MEMZAT10 174.250.210.213 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:RK/Archive