text:
Talk:Book of Mormon controversies/Archive 1

--

Hey! I've got all this irrelevant discussion I cut from the Book of Mormon page. It was useless there, but I am embarrassed to poof it. I hope I won't get spanked, but I'm going to paste it here. At least here it will kind of show discussers that this article has been around and around and around.... If I have done wrong, go ahead and delete from here to the next zqzqzqz. Hawstom 22:58, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why don't you guys mention the 116 pages? Afraid people will see through your lies?

 * Oh, no! Criticisim from a vandal. —Frecklefoot 15:18, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to need references before I can buy this statement:

 * The church no longer teaches that the dark peoples of the world will be made white after accepting the Book of Mormon and the rest of the gospel.

white is used in many places in the scriptures in a symbolic sense, and it would make sense to clarify that the use there referred to purity and not skin color, especially if individual members were starting to take it the wrong way.

The way the church works, it's not a church teaching unless the leaders taught it (and usually repeat it many, many times) in the official channels. The whole point being to not go off on single verses like that one. And I've never heard of changing skin color being church doctrine.

 * I remember a quote from President Kimball where he said a black person marrying a white person would drop dead on the spot. Yes, really. But I'll have to search for it. Yes, church doctrine was that black people would become white once they accepted the gospel, over a period of generations.

Reporting the Church's views is only NPOV if these view are put in the context of comparative religion and theological discussion. To dismiss such criticism as a "straw man" opens the path to declaring non-Mormon views as being heretic on the Wikipedia.

 * Right, which is why I reported that the church considered it a straw man. I would also be fine mentioning that the church considers particular non-Mormon views as heretical.  Reporting the criticism itself as a straw man or reporting that the views themselves were heretical wouldn't necessarily be NPOV.

 * RANT: I've been frequently annoyed with the one-sidedness of criticism that gets posted about the church, as if 10 million church members don't mind or are somehow ignorant of great glaring inconsistencies in their faith (like, oh, say, Spencer Kimball teaching that interracial couples would fall over dead - I imagine we'll be waiting a long time for a reference on that statement). The problem is that lots of people who are anti-Mormon for some reason or another have published web sites with lists of trite claims like this which are completely false, don't tell the whole story, or are phrased to sound strange and menacing (God is an alien!).  The original addendum about changes to the text of the BOM could have come right from one of those sites, and stated (falsely, AFAICT) that they had changed the text around after a change of doctrine about changing skin color.  These claims sound especially bad to fundamentalist Christians, since they treat the bible as their ultimate authority, and may not realize that the mormon treatment of scripture is slightly different.  All of these criticisms are fine to report, if for no other reason than that lots of critics are fond of them, but you have to realize that they often come from a biased source, and that, at least in this case, don't pose major problems to the internal consistency of the faith (which I believe I can say neutrally - an unbiased outsider should be able to consider the published doctrines and the changes to the book and come to the same conclusion).  There are probably lots of good criticisms of the mormon faith, but I'm tired of having to refute the poor ones that keep getting reported here as fact. /RANT

You're right, there is no such quote from Kimball. There is, however, one from Brigham Young. I had just forgotten the correct attribution -- remember, it was from memory.

I added an explanation of the history of the beliefs regarding black people to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under the history section. I tried *very* hard to be fair and npov, and I gave references.

So you didn't have to wait *that* long for an attribution. :-)

I'm really not interested in propogandizing one way or the other. If the information I have is not complete, and therefore slanted, I welcome your filling in what I've missed. --Dmerrill

- I really don't know much about this. I do know that the church banned African-Americans from the priesthood until the 1970s. (On the other hand, apparently Joseph Smith Jr. had ordained an African-American in the early days of the church, so...) -- SJK - The article said no horse remains had been found in the Americas by archaeologists, although they are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't horses originate in America? IIRC, they evolved in the Americas, moved to Asia then Europe over the Bering Strait during the Ice Ages, and then died out in the Americas... all of this happened tens of thousands of years ago of course... in which case, I'm guessing they have found horse remains (although it would have been palaeontologists, not archaeologists, who found them...) Of course, horses existing in America tens of thousands of years ago is still no real evidence for the Book of Mormon's claims that they existed there much more recently, but we should be fair... -- SJK

 * Here's an article about horses: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0511_ancienthorses.html It appears that horses existed in North America for a long time, became extinct, then were introduced. --Eric

Removing pending verification from a source. I have heard third hand that the church made this claim, but that alone doesn't make it so. And I wouldn't even state it as a church claim, since I got it only third hand. Would whoever added it please give an attribution to the claim?

 * The change from "white" to "pure" was first made in an 1840 edition edited by Joseph Smith, but the change wasn't perpetuated in later editions until 1981.

--Dmerrill

 * Take your pick; the first four are pro-LDS sources, the other two anti-LDS:

http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/LDS-scriptures/Book_of_Mormon/ http://www.alphamin.org/alphamin/sharon18.htm http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques03.htm http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/changes.htm http://www.challengemin.org/8400.html http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:aB4VS6OYxAkC:www.irr.org/mit/changingscrips.html

I've removed the statement that says some of the witnesses later signed statements denying what they had stated earlier. As far as I've been able to find out, this simply isn't true, and even the anti-Mormon sites I checked out don't make this claim. Rather, they raise other questions about the witnesses' credibility. See http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm. --E.

 * Um, this page does make this claim. Please re-read it. I don't see how it supports your position.

BTW, why were my recent changes deleted? Someone said that they were not NPOV, but how so? NPOV does not mean that everyone will agree with it. It means, rather, that we are honor-bound to discuss issues in an impartial manner, in accord with the highest levels of historical and scientific scholarship. Nothing I have seen in the latest revert strokes me as being NPOV. Rather, it looks to me that we have merely removed facts that would offend a Mormon true believer. But the point of having a non-religious encyclopedia is to point out the history and facts behind each subject, even if true believers of any stripe disapprove. That goes for my faith as well. I would greatly appreciate it if you would simply mention any phrase that you find problematic, and offer an alternative. But don't just wipe it all out. That's not maintaining a high level of academic integrity. RK

RK, You have added some interesting material, but please change the tone and presentation to reflect a NPOV. These excerpts illustrate what I'm talking about:

 * "No historians or archaeologists accept the validity of any of these claims."

 * However since the plates mysteriously disappeared, this is impossible to verify."

 * "It is literally impossible..."

 * "LDS apologists originally claimed..."

 * "However, in recent years Church leaders have admitted that many changes were made. They have since created an entirely new doctrine..."

Further, there are a few instances when links to source material really should be included. For example, you cite a BYU doctoral thesis. Did you personally look at the thesis? Are you borrowing the reference from a third-party source? Then cite that source. I am not doubting that it exists, but you need to build a solid case for things like this.

Until you do these, your changes just don't fit into the article.Q

I've re-added some comments I made about the "horses" -> "tapirs" statements. My original comments were expanded by someone else to a larger (and likely NPOV degree) which was outside of my original intent.

The two main things I think are important here:

1) Claiming that "Word X" which happens to be historically ... incongruent ... is actually "Word Y" which happens to be historically compatable. IMHO violates some prinicples of textual criticism.   I think we owe it to ourselves that we treat BOM as any other book.

For Example: It would be completely acceptable that when talking about Fermats Last Theorem to take his claim that he had found a solution and say that he was possibly mistaken. Why? Because although we know the theorem to be correct. We also know it is extremely unlikely that the modern solution was Fermats. We also know that there are a number of "blind alleys" i.e. Methods that look like complete proofs but are not.

If we were to apply the same logic it would be reasonable to say that: Joseph Smith was possibly mistaken in his translation of the original text. However that, IMHO opens a whole can of worms concerning accuracy (and possibly the origin) of Urim and Thurim. So I think it's reasonable to point out that the claim isn't actually evidence unless we have the original text..or something linking to the original text (such as in the case of other books which have many manuscripts).

2) Normally I wouldn't be so adamant about this however the phrase in question does appear in a section that is labeled "Authenticity of the Book of Mormon" and just after a sentence that mentions "linguistic" evidence.

So I think implicitly we are sending the message that this is "linguistic evidence of authenticity". Which would only be the case if we had the original text...However since we don't it's really apologetics.

Anyway hope this doesn't offend anyone! :-)

I am deleting the following paragraph because it imposes a claim not made by LDS:

 * The claim that the ancient inhabitants of Mesoamerica wrote with a variation of Egyptian heiroglyphics was in line with early published antiquitarian accounts at the start of the 19th century, but when better accounts became availible starting in the 1840s with the works of William H. Prescott, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood this was shown not to be the case. Today the vast majority of ancient Mesoamerican writing can be read by scholars, confirming it is unrelated to the Egyptian language and writing system.

No LDS apologist nor church authority has made such a broad claim about the written language of Mesoamericans.

 * You are attacking a strawman. LDs people did have such beliefs, even if you prefer that they were phrased another way. You seem embarrassed by their beliefs, because these belief have been proven to be based on a hoax. So be it. But we can't rewrite historical facts to cover up someone's embarassment.

 * RK, a number statements in your last reply were somewhat ambiguous and vague. Please state what strawman I am attacking. Also, please reference an authoritative source attributable to the LDS church that 'ALL or most or a majority' of ancient inhabitants of Mesoamerica wrote with a variation of Egptian heiroglyphics.  (That is what the deleted claim implies.)  1 Nephi 1:2 of the Book of Mormon states that "...I[, Nephi,] make a record in the language of my father which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians."  Please show us how to move from the Nephi quote to the broad claim above.  I'm not embarrassed in the least bit.  The actual beliefs of the LDS have hardly been disproven.  Please state exactly what historical facts are being rewritten.  BoNoMoJo 23:49 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

The criticism about the "plates being constructed entirely of gold" is another strawman argument. There is, for example, the testimony of witnesses in the front of the Book of Mormon state that the plates had "the appearance of gold", but there is no official declaration that the plates were constructed entirely of gold. These two claims (entirely of gold and re: egyptian language) examplify what sort problems that could arise without proper attribution or citation. Even if I myself believe that the plates were "gold plates", but that doesn't mean I or any other LDS member believe that the plates were made entirely of gold. If I say the ring on my finger is a gold ring, that doesn't mean the ring is 24-karat. LDS apologists have pointed out this distinction many times. The "gold plates" could have just as easily been called the "gold-alloy plates". To be sure, Mormon beliefs should not be whitewashed or rewritten, but we do need to be sure that we do not attribute beliefs to Mormons which they did not have. BoNoMoJo

While there is plenty of room for valid criticisms, I hope the critical posters are more prudent about the positions they advance. There are some other paragraphs in this article attributing claims to the "church". These will need some fixing too. "The Church" generally just doesn't address criticisms. Please try to be more precise about whom you think is making a claim or engaging in apologetics.

I've also deleted:

 * However since we lack the original text this is difficult to validate.

Sarkeizeri's comments do not appear to have insight into the translation process in general and as it applied to Joseph Smith in particular and the fact that the original text is not available is irrelevant in this case. Any one who has studied a second language knows that translation is an art. Languages have meanings not directly transferrable into the words of another language. Thus, translators use discretion in the words they use in the target language. Translators are also bound by the extent of their own vocabulary. I can't imagine that the unschooled JS had the word "tapir" at his command. So even if JS knew in his mind to what the original text was referring, it's easy to see how JS would use a familiar word to describe a similar-looking animal. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the original text said.

Personally, I'm persuaded that: the original text referred to modern horses; the theory that modern horses were introduced to America from Europe after Columbus is wrong; and appaloosas and pintos may be good candidates for descendants of pre-columbian american horses...but what do I know. Here is an interesting link to a non-LDS source who agrees about the origins of some american horses.

Please note "probative" is being used in NPOV, not partisan, fashion. The last paragraph on the archeology section is also a nice summary of that section. Don't delete it just because you misunderstand what it says. Sark, since you have an ID now, please remember to sign off on comments you make in the Talk page.

BoNoMoJo 21:51 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

I'd like to try to treat all books, religious and otherwise, from the same neutral point of view. That even goes for the holy books of my own religion. I have had cause to diagree even with people of my own faith, and they have attacked me with emotional outbursts, and they have used the same fundamentalist techniques to prove that their interpretation of a holy book is "the truth", even when science, history and archaeology have proven that they are incorrect. RK

 * I feel the same way about all books religious or otherwise including my own faith. Unfortunately, members of my own faith have relied on poor grounds to "prove" their beliefs from time to time.  I am skeptical that science generally can conclusively prove (empirical) claims.  IMO the laws, theories and hypotheses of science shift and change over time as more evidence becomes available and will continue to do so until humankind can bound beyond its finite capacity of observation.  I would like to think that scientific theories and laws become more accurate over time, but IMO neither science as a whole nor any of its various fields have once and for all met its ends and become the final arbiter of truth...yet.  History is no less controversial in this respect.  I respect science and history like any other seeker of knowledge, but also appreciate their shortcomings.  I've been influenced by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, some of W. V. Quine's views (like his observations "Two Dogmas of Empiricism") and other philosophers of science.  BoNoMoJo

 * RK, you need to realize that a lot of your "serious scholarship" appears to be drawn from anti-Mormon sites whose editorial policy consist of:
 * Assertion shows how foolish and/or fraudulent the Mormons and their leaders are.
 * Assertion has a ring of plausibility.

 * Some of this material can be useful, but you need to take care when you use it. Beware of generalizations, like the one I cited above that "No historians or archaeologists accept the validity of any of these claims." You do not speak for every historian and archaeologist on Earth.

 * Another example:

 * "since the plates mysteriously disappeared..."

 * To whom was the disappearance mysterious? In the LDS POV, Joseph Smith gave the plates to the angel Moroni. There was no mystery. Many non-Mormons believe that the plates never existed. For them, the "disappearance" is not a mystery either. So why use the word mysterious?

 * And third, be careful in distinguishing the various groups involved.

 * In your descriptions, you must be careful to distinguish these:
 * Mormon leaders
 * Mormons in general
 * Mormon apologists

 * Also these:
 * Mormon doctrine
 * Things certain Mormons believe/believed to be true, even if not based on doctrine.
 * Something stated by a Mormon, perhaps a leader (in any of a variety of contexts).

 * When you blur the distinctions in these cases, you risk putting words in people's mouths.

 * A good rule of thumb for any claim you think might be contraversial is to include a reference to the source. If a web site cites some other source, then you should cite the web site. Otherwise, you are responsible for any misrepresentations (out of context or otherwise) the site may have commited.

 * I'm actually glad you wish to contribute to this article. I want to see each side represented fairly. Anyway, welcome aboard. Q

I just want to be absolutely clear here to any one that has doubts. I have no pro-Mormon agenda here and I'm sure I'll end up having heated disagreements with Mormon adherents who will not like valid criticical points of view on LDS topics to which I contribute or support. If some one disagrees, let's focus on the issue rather than jump to personal or inflammatory attacks. BoNoMoJo

Hmm - I guess I must be a non-educated member of the Wikipedia community... Btw, Is it necessary to have individual (stub) entries for each of the books of Mormon? Since the Book of Mormon is less widespread than (say) the Bible, I think it'd be reasonable to have just one article on it - the same as other books. -Martin

 * Actually, I would hope that we could have a lot of information on all the modern, as well, as classical, religious books. Even though this book isn't anywhere near as widespread as the Bible, it is at least as widespread as many other religious works. Wikipedia isn't constrained by the high costs of paper publishing, and disk space gets cheaper each year. Why not have more info? RK

 * Martin, there is some exegesis and comparative work on the BoM from LDS that could be included on separate pages for various books and chapters in the BoM. Beyond that there is non-LDS work on BoM with its emphasis on critical attempts to draw out inconsistencies, revisions, word usage, etc.  This brings up the issue Karl mentions below about wanting to be able to come to the page to see the beliefs, tenets, etc of a religious sect and then turn to other pages for debatable issues on the primary article.  If debatable issues are to have their own separate pages, some contributors may want a separate page for each book in the BoM as well since LDS critics generally leave no stone unturned and contributors may want to have something to say about every "and it came to pass" in the BoM.  At least one thing that should be linked to each book for quick and direct reference is the full text of each book online at the LDS' website. B 16:43 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother to read the above interchange (RK vs. Bonomo) closely. A quick glance shows that it's mean-spirited. How ironic that two religious people, both sworn to God to be good to their fellow man, would betray their own ideals by stooping so low. --Uncle Ed

Surely there's some space between the rock of an eye for an eye and the hard place of turn the other cheek. I really don't have time to fix the NPOV errors in this article. In fact, I haven't even read it since last week. Let's focus on improving the process.

First off, RK, let's drop personal remarks like
 * surprisingly unsophisticated
 * your emotional outbursts
 * Bible-thumper

Such remarks are counter-productive to your own goals, don't you know. They focus attention away from the issue at hand, which is: how do we improve the article?

BoNoMoJo: I think RK deserves to be mollified. You don't need to chide RK. Let me do that, since he seems to tolerate it better from me than from you. Try to keep in mind what our common goal is. In fact, it might help if both of you stated what you believe is your common goal for this article. Or at, least, each of you write a short summary of what your individual goals are. There's really no reason to fight. --Uncle Ed

 * I've already stated some of my intentions in the eariler exchange, but I'll add to it. My primary goal is to see that all important views on any LDS topic are presented fairly, accurately and thoroughly.  I also care about working towards that goal with civility and respect. BoNoMoJo

 * Just follow our NPOV policy and all will be happy. --mav

Don't take it to heart, BoNoMoJo. "When they are learned, they think they are wise" (2 Nephi 9:28). What is happening here reminds me of Helaman 3:33-34. I think you have been well within line, BoNoMoJo (may I call you BoNo for short?). RK, I fully agree with you that there are problems with the BoM, D&C, PoGP, etc. These should be reported. However, there are also responses to these problems, which should also be reported, and that is exactly what BoNoMoJo did. Are these responses valid? That is a question of POV. AFAIK, he did not push it one way or the other. He simply reported the responses, which, in my book, is NPOV. Now I don't think you will call me a closet Mormon for saying that, would you? Danny

- I've rephrased the section preceding archeology. I've already pointed this out once...the statement below is false. While some individuals may have made the claim below, it is not an official claim of the church:

 * The Church of Latter Day Saints originally claimed that the plates were made of pure gold.

Besides also not being attributable to the church, it has not been show to be generally attributable to its adherents either. The section relied on this false premise but the section's relevance is tenuous without the contributor showing that the church or its adherents accepted this claim. Apologists do not speak for the church or its adherents. The material below ignores this point and confuses the issue further as if the official position of the church and the beliefs of apologists were interchangeable with each other:

 * After the above criticisms were made many LDS apologists changed their position to hold that these plates were made of some alloy of gold. This, however, is a new position, and not the original position of the LDS church.

Every effort should be made to attribute a position to specific individuals or entities and back up the attribution with a reference especially where the claim is controversial and the attributions are disputable. Generally I've no problem with the material below but it again ignores attribution and backing up the attribution with a reference:

 * There are various explanations available:

 * The plates never existed. It was a hoax.
 * The plates were made of an alloy of gold
 * The plates were only golden in appearance

I ended up rephrasing it and adding back the attributions and references which were deleted. If this convention is not followed, these articles will be a hopeless quagmire of anyone claiming any person/thing claimed anything. For this purpose I've rephrased and reposted an earlier criterion encouraging people to follow this convention:

 * "*Contributors should cite sources when attributing controversial claims and positions to various entities (e.g. the LDS Church), groups (e.g. LDS members) or individuals (e.g. Joseph Smith). Contributors have the burden of citing sources for disputable attributions and representing the material from the cited sources accurately.  When attributing a position to either the LDS Church or its members, contributors also have the burden of demonstrating that the material reflects an official position of the Church or the beliefs of its adherents."

Citing sources and clearly attributing the claim/position to a proper referent are in good keeping with scholarly rigor. This has been a primary motive driving my contributions to this article so far. BoNoMoJo

 * BoNoMoJo is correct. Pasting random facts into an article without a source creates a dilemma for future contributors: did this fact come from a reputable source? Does it misrepresent the real facts? Any respectable scholarly source (which RK seems to agree is important) will attribute all critical information to its source, thus allowing readers to trace facts back as far as needed to analyze its authenticity.

 * By the way, RK, I really like the Seer of Lublin's quote on your home page: "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous". Q

 * I like that quote too. It reminds me of Socrates' reference to his own wisdom that "I know that I do not know." BoNoMoJo

Has anyone got an attribution for Joseph Smith claiming the weight was 40-50 pounds? All I've found was the quote from William Smith (which is now in the article). -Martin

 * Martin, I appreciate your cleaning up the attributions and citations. Maybe RK or whoever won't agree with your revision but IMO that section appears more NPOV than any other previous version. BoNoMoJo

 * It was my pleasure. -Martin

-


text:
Akkrum

Akkrum is a village in the Dutch province of Friesland. It is located in the municipality Heerenveen, about 17 km south of the city of Leeuwarden.

Akkrum had about 3,395 inhabitants in 2017.

History
The village was first mentioned in 1315 as Ackrom. The etymology is unclear. Akkrum started as a terp (artificial living mound) village, and developed into a linear settlement which served as the regional centre. It started to grow when the main road Leeuwarden-Zwolle and later a railway line were built next to Akkrum. The Dutch Reformed church was built in 1759 as a replacement of a medieval church. The tower dates from 1882. In 1840, Akkrum was home to 1,121 people.

The polder mill Mellemolen was built in 1849 to drain excess water from the Polslootpolder. In 1972, the mill was toppled in a storm, and restored in 1976. The mill was surrounded by industry and it was moved two kilometers in 2003 to 2004. It only operates on a voluntary basis.

Before 2014, Akkrum was part of the Boarnsterhim municipality and before 1984 it was part of Utingeradeel.

Transportation
Akkrum has a railway station - Akkrum railway station - with services to Leeuwarden, Zwolle, Amersfoort and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

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

title: Akkrum


text:
Arnemuiden

Arnemuiden is a city of around 5000 people in the municipality of Middelburg in the province of Zeeland in the Netherlands. It is located on the former island of Walcheren, about 3 km east of the city of Middelburg.

On the 23 September 1338, at the start of the Hundred Years' War between England and France, a naval battle was held near Arnemuiden. It was the first naval battle of the Hundred Years' War and the first naval battle using artillery, as the English ship Christofer had three cannons and one handgun.

In 1573, Arnemuiden was destroyed by Spanish troops and more than 300 citizens were killed. Even though only a couple of hundred people were left, it received city rights in 1574.

Until 1997, Arnemuiden was a separate municipality. Arnemuiden has a railway station - Arnemuiden railway station.

A substantial part of the inhabitants of Arnemuiden have been a fisherman in some part of their life. This explains the immense popularity of tattoos and fishing ship earrings in the village.

"De klok van Arnemuiden" is a Dutch song about the church clock at the Arnemuiden central market.

title: Arnemuiden


text:
Baflo

Baflo (Bavvelt ) is a village in the municipality of Het Hogeland, Netherlands.

Famous people born in Baflo include humanist Rodolphus Agricola (1443/1444–1485) and jurist Gezina van der Molen (1892–1972).

Until 1990, Baflo was a separate municipality. Baflo has a railway station.

Church of St. Laurentius
Baflo church was originally dedicated to St. Laurentius. It is the large one-aisled church with free standing tower. The church was first mentioned in 1211. The tower of church is separated from the main building.

title: Baflo


text:
Elsloo

Elsloo is the name of two towns in the Netherlands:

 * Elsloo, Friesland, Ooststellingwerf municipality
 * Elsloo, Limburg, Stein municipality

title: Elsloo


text:
Shingen Yashida

Lord Shingen Yashida (also Shingen Harada) is a supervillain appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character is usually depicted as an adversary of Wolverine.

The character was played by Hiroyuki Sanada in the 2013 film The Wolverine.

Publication history
Shingen first appeared in Wolverine #1 (Sept. 1982) and was created by Chris Claremont and Frank Miller.

Fictional character biography
Shingen was a ruthless, combat-hungry, and megalomaniacal crime lord who used his yakuza connections to become the leader of the Yashida clan, ruling over the syndicate with an iron fist. To settle a personal debt incurred during his rise to power, Shingen forced his daughter Mariko Yashida to marry yakuza boss Noboru Hideki against her will. Wolverine found out Noboru beat Mariko nearly to death and confronted Noboru but relented from killing him upon Mariko's insistence. Shingen had Wolverine poisoned, temporarily weakening him so that Shingen could beat and humiliate the superhuman mutant in a duel with bokken in front of Mariko. Shingen used his expert knowledge of human anatomy to secretly attack Wolverine's nerve endings in such a way so as to make the duel life-threatening. But as Mariko did not know this, when Wolverine attempted to use his claws to save himself, it appeared to Mariko that Wolverine was cheating. Mariko did not know that Wolverine's body had been saturated with enough lethal poison to kill several dozen ordinary men, or that Shingen was the one who was actually cheating in the duel. This had the effect of disgracing Wolverine in front of her, which was the design of Shingen. Logan was then dumped onto the Tokyo streets and found by Yukio, Shingen's best assassin. Yukio participated in deception with the Hand ninja clan to manipulate Wolverine into assassinating a rival crime lord, using Mariko as unwitting bait for additional motivation. After his role was completed, Shingen ordered Logan killed, but Yukio ignored the order. This led to the Hand being sent to enforce his will. In the events resulting from that action, including the death of a personal friend by Yukio, Wolverine realized that Yukio was the one who poisoned him at Shingen's residence and was being played for a fool at apparently Shingen's orders. After a philosophic epiphany about humanity, Logan then completely destroyed the Yashida criminal empire and confronted Shingen a second time. Shingen did not survive the confrontation. Mariko revealed she'd planned to kill her dishonorable father personally then commit seppuku in recompense had not Logan prevented her. Afterward, Mariko and Wolverine decided to marry, with the X-Men receiving an invitation from the Emperor of Japan for the event.

It is later revealed that his illegitimate son Kenuichio Harada wanted to inherit Shingen's position.

Shingen was briefly resurrected by Phaedra of the Hand as part of a campaign of revenge against Wolverine.

Powers and abilities
Lord Shingen had no superhuman abilities but was in peak physical condition despite his age, and he was one of the finest swordsmen and martial artists in all of Japan. Highly intelligent, he had extensive knowledge of human anatomy, pressure points, and great knowledge of poisons and assassination techniques. Shingen was highly skilled in the management of criminal organizations and very well connected in the international criminal underworld, particularly in areas of drug traffic.

Other versions
In the comic series Exiles, a younger version of Shingen Yashida exists in the home reality of Mariko Yashida (aka Sunfire).

Television

 * Shingen Yashida appears in Marvel Anime: Wolverine, voiced by Hidekatsu Shibata in the Japanese version and by Fred Tatasciore in the English dub. This version is the leader of the Kuzuryū syndicate (a yakuza faction) and a notorious member of A.I.M., serving as their weapons dealer. He arranges for his own daughter Mariko Yashida to be married against her will to Hideki Kurohagi of Madripoor, with the series focusing on Wolverine working to prevent the marriage and rescuing Mariko. He is also enemies with the Madripoor rebel leader Koh, who killed his son after he fell in love and started a family with one of Shingen's top assassins, whom he also killed when she turned on him. When Koh resurfaced years later to get his revenge on Shingen and Hideki, Shingen sadistically mocked his obsession with revenge and fatally wounded both him and his granddaughter Yukio. By the end of the series, in a last-ditch attempt to stop Wolverine and consolidate his power, Shingen banishes Hideki, Mariko, and his own henchmen and dons a special armor made of Vibranium and steel to battle Wolverine, during which he is killed.

Film

Shingen Yashida appears in The Wolverine, portrayed by Hiroyuki Sanada. In addition to being the father of Mariko Yashida, this version is the son of billionaire Ichirō Yashida and foster brother of Yukio. After the Yashidas' technology empire is left to Mariko despite Shingen's attempts to cover up his father's near-bankruptcy, Shingen began seeking vengeance, developing an obsession with humiliating and killing Ichirō, and ruthlessly betrays his family by conspiring with Japan's Minister of Justice Noburo Mori and the yakuza to kill Mariko for taking what he saw as his and gain his father's admiration. After he is poisoned by Viper, Shingen dons the Yashida Clan's traditional samurai armor and attacks and attempts to brutally kill Yukio, but is instead defeated and killed by Logan.

title: Shingen Yashida


text:
Bovenkarspel

Bovenkarspel is a town in the municipality of Stede Broec in the Dutch province of North Holland. Until 1979, it was a separate municipality.

Legionella outbreak
In March 1999 an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease occurred during a flower exhibition in Bovenkarspel. Many people were hospitalized in Hoorn. 318 people became ill and at least 32 died. Probably more victims died and were buried before the legionellosis infection was recognized. The source of the bacteria was probably a whirlpool and a humidifier in the exhibition area.

Railway stations
There are 2 railway stations in Bovenkarspel - Bovenkarspel-Grootebroek and Bovenkarspel Flora - with half-hourly connections to Hoorn, Amsterdam and Enkhuizen.

title: Bovenkarspel


text:
Buitenpost

Buitenpost (Bûtenpost in West Frisian) is a village in north-east Friesland in the Netherlands.

It lies approximately halfway between the cities of Leeuwarden (the capital of Friesland) and Groningen, in the northern part of the municipality of Achtkarspelen. With 5,762 inhabitants, Buitenpost is the second largest settlement in the municipality.

Buitenpost is home to the Netherlands' largest botanical herbal garden.

History
The village was first mentioned in 1388 as Post, and means outside bridge. Buiten (outside) was added to distinguish from the hamlet of Lutkepost. Buitenpost is a road village which developed along the main road from Leeuwarden to Groningen, and became the capital of the grietenij (predecessor of a municipality) Achtkarspelen.

The tower of the Protestant church was constructed around 1200 and enlarged in the 16th century. The church dates from the 15th century, but was damaged in a fire in 1594, and restored between 1611 and 1613. There were two stinses (villas) near Buitenpost: Herbrandastate which was demolished in 1780 and Haersmastate which was demolished around 1910. In 1840, it was home to 882 people.

In 1866, Buitenpost railway station was opened in the village. Wind mill De Mûnts is a polder mill constructed in 1871. Its purpose was to remove the excess water from the low-lying polder. The mill was located in Oosterhoogebrug, Groningen, and was needed for the construction of the Eemskanaal. On 7 July 1952, it was scheduled for demolition, but was bought by Wolter Bakker and moved to Buitenpost to replace an engine powered pumping station.

Notable buildings

 * The Protestant church of Buitenpost

Transportation

 * Buitenpost railway station

title: Buitenpost


text: User talk:216.16.232.98

title: User talk:216.16.232.98


text:
Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis

The Frigg and Freyja common origin hypothesis holds that the Old Norse goddesses Frigg and Freyja descend from a common Proto-Germanic figure, as suggested by the numerous similarities found between the two deities. Scholar Stephan Grundy comments that "the problem of whether Frigg or Freyja may have been a single goddess originally is a difficult one, made more so by the scantiness of pre-Viking Age references to Germanic goddesses, and the diverse quality of the sources. The best that can be done is to survey the arguments for and against their identity, and to see how well each can be supported."

The names Freyja and Vanir (the group of gods to which Freyja belongs) are not attested outside of Scandinavia, as opposed to the name of the goddess Frigg, who is mentioned as Frīg in Old English and as Frīja in Old High German, all stemming from Proto-Germanic *Frijjō. Although there is no similar evidence for the existence of a common Germanic goddess from which Freyja descends, some scholars have argued that this may simply be due to the scarcity of records outside of the North Germanic tradition.

Etymology
It has also been suggested that the names Freyja and Frigg may stem from a common linguistic source. This theory, however, is rejected by most linguists in the field, who interpret the name Frigg as related to the Proto-Germanic verb *frijōn ('to love') and stemming from a substantivized feminine of the adjective *frijaz ('free'), whereas Freyja is regarded as descending from a feminine form of *frawjōn ('lord'). On the other hand, the names Freyja ('lady, mistress') and Freyr ('lord') are cognates stemming from the common root *frawjōn, which does not necessarily imply further relation.

Common mythological traits
Both Frigg and Freyja are associated with weaving, combining the aspects of a love goddess and a domestic goddess. In Sweden and some parts of Germany, the asterism of Orion's Belt is known as her distaff or spindle.

In popular culture
In the 2018 Santa Monica Studio game God of War, and in its 2022 sequel God of War Ragnarök the character Freyja is frequently referred to as Frigg. The stated reason in game is whenever she accomplished something, Odin would attribute it to Frigg in an attempt to shroud her accomplishments under the Aesir banner.

In the universe of Marvel Comics, Frigga the adopted mother of Thor and the Asgardian goddess Freya were initially written as different characters. Beginning with Loki: Agent of Asgard in 2015, Frigga has exclusively used the name Freyja, although a separate character with the name "Freya" has also made scarce appearance.


text:
Bunde

Bunde may refer to:

People

 * Con Bunde (born 1938), American educator and politician

Places

 * Bunde, Germany, a town in the Leer District in Lower Saxony, Germany
 * Bunde, Netherlands, a town in the municipality of Meerssen in Limburg, the Netherlands
 * Bünde, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
 * Bunde, Minnesota, an unincorporated community, United States

title: Bunde


text:
Pick-up sticks (Haida)

Haida pick-up sticks exist in two sorts. There were non-decorated thin playing sticks (not collected) and the other decorated, containing three sets of sticks. These were named after animals or birds only known by the owner or his family, according to Charles F. Newcombe.

The decoration consists of rings and spiral markings for distinction. Most elaborated sets may contain a Haida art gallery of more than fifty drawings. Made of maple wood, they are decorated with pyro-engravings or carvings. Many pyro-engravings are inlaid with copper or abalone shell. The drawings are complex and an artistic challenge as they are wrapped around a cylinder. Their form is unlocked through slow rotation and are sometimes animated cartoon-like with themes of moving shamans, birds, whales, war scenes, hunting, fishing, etc. The compositions are small and not more than 2 cm in length. The sticks were a field where the Haida became truly documentary. Franz Boas, Swanton and others published drawings of many art sets. George T. Emmons recorded many details about a full set owned by a Tlingit Indian.

It is possibly related to the pick-up sticks game played today, most notably the Jackstraws variation.

title: Pick-up sticks (Haida)


text:
Kau chim

Kau chim, kau cim, chien tung, "lottery poetry" and Chinese fortune sticks are names for a fortune telling practice that originated in China in which a person poses questions and interprets answers from flat sticks inscribed with text or numerals. The practice is often performed in a Taoist or Buddhist temple in front of an altar. In the US, a version has been sold since 1915 under the name chi chi sticks. It is also sometimes known as "The Oracle of Kuan Yin" in Buddhist traditions, a reference to the bodhisattva Guanyin. It is widely available in Thai temples, known using the Teochew dialect as siam si (เซียมซี). The similar practice is also found in Japan, named O-mikuji.

Tools

 * Chim bucket : A long cylindrical bamboo cup or tube.
 * Kau shim sticks : The flat sticks which are stored in the tube. Generally made of bamboo, they resemble wide, flat incense sticks, and are often painted red at one end. A single number, both in Arabic numerals and in Chinese characters, is inscribed on each stick. Each stick has a different number on it, and no two are alike. There are usually a total of 100 sticks in the cup, although the chi chi Sticks variation sold in the US for fortune telling has only 78 sticks.
 * 100 written oracle outcomes (or 78, for the Chi Chi sticks variation). A German, Werner Banck, has classified the contents of 420 sets into 24 categories and 160 sub-categories.

History
The practice of kau chim or chien tung interpretation dates back to the Jin dynasty, according to the Jade Box Records, an ancient Chinese book on date selection, written by the famous Taoist monk Xu Xun in the 3rd century AD. Despite the Cultural Revolution in mainland China during the 1960s and 1970s, lottery poetry still persists today in temples in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, mainland China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Singapore. Most Taoist temples have lottery poetry to provide religious guidance for believers.

Practice
The prediction begins with the cup storing a number of the sticks. After the querent has finished their devotions to the main deity, the querent purifies the cylinder by revolving it around the incense burner three times and mixing the sticks by hand. The querent kneels in prayer, holding the cup between their palms and asking their question to the deity, either aloud or by whispering. This part is done decisively, as one should not shift questions or hesitate on the question in the middle of the rite. The shaking of the cylinder, which is usually tipped slightly downward, results in at least one stick leaving the cylinder and being dropped onto the floor. In most cases, if multiple sticks leave the cylinder, those fortunes do not count and must be shaken again. Each stick, with its designated number, represents one answer.

When a single stick falls out, the number will correspond to one of the hundred written oracles with an answer on it. The writing on the piece of paper will provide an answer to the question. In most cases, to confirm the validity of the answer given by the deity, the querent will pick up and toss two jiaobei blocks. Each block is round on one side and flat on the other. A successful answer requires one flat and one round side to be facing up, a failed answer will result in two round sides facing up. Much emphasis is placed on denial when both sides flat are tossed; some legends say when this happens, the deities are laughing at the querent. The querent will have the option to ask for a fortune again until a successful answer can be made.

Following a successful fortune, interpretation may be needed to comprehend the answer. Answers can be interpreted by a temple priest or volunteers or can be self-interpreted by the querent. In many cases, an offering is made prior to the asking of the question in order to carry good favor from the higher powers. These offerings typically consist of incense, fresh fruits, cakes, or monetary donations.

Alternative tools and practice
At places such as the Thean Hou Temple in Kuala Lumpur, the handheld bucket is replaced with a larger container. On the inside at the bottom of the container are protrusions (such as the heads of fixing bolts). To consult the oracle, the querent holds the sticks (sometimes refer to as oracle sticks) in a vertical bundle, raises them a little inside the bucket and drops them while holding them loosely. Any stick that stands proud of the rest (because it is resting on a protrusion, not having bounced off) is considered part of the divined answer.

Interpretation
The stick result is analyzed by an interpreter, who has a book of Chinese poetic phrases and stories. The interpretation is generally short ranged, typically covering no more than one year, using Chinese New Year as the starting point. The interpreter typically charges a small fee. Often, interpreters provide other services such as palm or face reading.

Because the supposed accuracy of the prediction very much depends on the interpreter, some people run the result through a number of different interpreters to see whether similar results are drawn. The interpreted answer is usually a historical Chinese story re-told in modern sense. The story is basically the forthcoming event the querent is about to experience.

In some traditions, the believer draws one lottery and looks for the corresponding poem to the lottery. The poems are written or printed on a piece of paper, usually 12 - 15 cm long and 4 cm wide, with a Jueju poem on each piece as the answer to the believer from the gods.

Locale
In Hong Kong, by and large the most popular place for this fortune telling practice is the Wong Tai Sin Temple which draws thousands to millions of people each year.

In Thailand, kau chim is commonly known as seam si (เซียมซี; alternatively spelled siem si, siem see). It is believed that seam si came to Thailand with the Chinese diasporas and was presumably first introduced at the oldest Chinese temple in Thailand; the Lim Ko Niao Shrine in Pattani Province. The oracles were only available in Chinese until as early as the reign of King Chulalongkorn, where one of the earliest translation of the oracles were printed in Thai by Plean Sae-song (เปลี่ยน แซ่ซ้อง) for Wat Kanlayanamit in Thonburi.

In 1915, kau chim sticks were introduced to the United States under the trade name "Chi Chi Chinese Fortune Teller" by the Pacific Dry Goods Company of San Francisco, California, where a large population of Cantonese Chinese immigrants had settled. The Chi Chi sticks, 78 in number, were made in China of bamboo but they were marked with Arabic numerals instead of Chinese characters, and were packaged in a bright yellow and red chipboard tube with a black lid (like a modern mailing tube). They were accompanied by a rolled-up booklet of 78 rhyming interpretations that fit inside the tube with the sticks.

By the early 1920s, chi chi sticks were available all across America, from several importers and under a variety of trade names, including "Chien Tung Fortune Teller." They were heavily marketed to African American fortune tellers through mail-order catalogs. They fell out of popularity during World War II, but only due to problems with supply, as China had been invaded by Japan and trade routes were disrupted.

In the 1990s, importations of kau chim sticks were available again in the US. This time, packaged in leather-covered tubes painted with ornate Chinese designs, but also with the old rhyming Chi Chi stick booklet so well known to Americans. Meanwhile, vintage Chi Chi sticks of the 1915-1935 era (if all their parts and the booklet are intact) have become highly desired artifacts among those who collect fortune telling objects.

The practice of using sticks in Chien Tung may be related to the game of pick-up sticks played today. This theory is based on a Japanese variation, called Mikado, which also has an emperor stick. A form of the game developed in the 16th century and may have been adapted from Chinese culture and religion.

Some Taoist temples in Taiwan and Malaysia also revere a special Medicinal Oracle sticks (藥簽) which the poems are written in the form of Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) concoction. Visitors can use the poem to buy items from the nearby Traditional Chinese Medicine shop. This was a common practice at certain Baosheng Dadi temples in olden days.

title: Kau chim


text:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (also known as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2) is a 1986 American black comedy slasher film co-composed and directed by Tobe Hooper and written by L. M. Kit Carson. It is the sequel to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and the second installment in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre film series. The film stars Dennis Hopper, Caroline Williams, Bill Johnson, Bill Moseley, and Jim Siedow. The plot follows Vanita "Stretch" Brock, a radio host who is victimized and abducted by Leatherface and his cannibalistic family; meanwhile, Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright, the uncle of Sally and Franklin Hardesty—both prior victims of the family—hunts them down.

Development of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 began following the 1981 theatrical re-release of the original film, which proved to be a financial success. After several delays, Hooper hired collaborator Carson to write the screenplay for the film in early 1986, with an emphasis on dark comedy, an element Hooper felt was present in the first film but went unacknowledged by audiences and critics. The Cannon Group served as the production company and distributor as part of a three-film deal the studio had struck with Hooper, having produced his previous two films, Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986). Principal photography occurred in Austin, Texas in the spring of 1986.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was released in the United States on August 22, 1986, and earned over half of its $4.5 million budget during its opening weekend before going on to gross $8 million domestically. It received mixed reception from film critics and audiences, largely due to its emphasis on black comedy and gore, which departed from the first film's approach that featured minimal violence, low-budget vérité style, and atmosphere to build tension and fear. The film's promotional materials featured a satirical bent, with its theatrical one-sheet parodying the poster art for John Hughes's popular teen comedy film The Breakfast Club (1985).

Despite its mixed reception, the film eventually gained a cult following. It was followed by Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III in 1990.

Plot
Two high school seniors, Buzz and Rick, race along a desolate stretch of Texas highway, en route to the Texas-OU football game at the Dallas Cotton Bowl and harass a pickup truck along the way. Heavily intoxicated, they use their car phone to call and harass on-air radio DJ Vanita "Stretch" Brock. Unable to convince them to hang up, Stretch is forced to keep the line open. As the two pass the same pickup truck, Leatherface emerges from the back of the truck and rips up the roof using his chainsaw. Rick tries shooting Leatherface with his revolver, but Leatherface kills Buzz. The car crashes, killing Rick.

The following morning, Lieutenant Boude "Lefty" Enright, former Texas Ranger, and uncle of Sally and Franklin Hardesty, who were victims of Leatherface and his family years earlier, arrives at the scene of the crime to help solve Buzz and Rick's murders. Lefty has spent the last thirteen years looking into his nephew's disappearance, investigating reports of mysterious chainsaw killings across Texas. He is contacted by Stretch, who brings him a copy of the audio tape that recorded the attack. He sends her away, leaving Stretch and her coworker L. G. Peters to reluctantly cover a Texas/Oklahoma Chili Cookoff for their radio show. The winner of the cookoff happens to be Drayton Sawyer, the current patriarch of the cannibalistic Sawyer family, who declares that his secret is having an eye for "prime meat."

Meanwhile, Lefty shops for chainsaws at a local hardware store. He at first unnerves, then amuses the shop's owner with his brutal testing of the saws on a log. Lefty then drives to Stretch's radio station and asks her to play the tape on her nightly radio show so that the public, which had previously mocked his case, will have to listen to him.

Driving home from his chili cookoff victory with his family, Drayton is called by Chop Top about the tape being broadcast, so he sends him and Leatherface to the radio station. While she is about to leave for the night, Stretch is confronted by Chop Top before being attacked by Leatherface. Chop Top brutally bludgeons L. G. with a hammer. Meanwhile, Leatherface corners Stretch and is about to kill her, but she charms him into sparing her. Leatherface returns to Chop Top and leads him to believe that he has killed Stretch. As they take L. G. to their home, they are followed by Stretch, who ends up trapped inside the Sawyers' subterranean lair, located in an abandoned amusement park and decorated with human bones, multi-colored lights, and carnival remnants.

Lefty, who has been following their car all along, arrives equipped with chainsaws and proceeds to vandalize the lair before finding Franklin's remains. Meanwhile, Stretch is found by Leatherface, who puts L. G.'s skinned face and hat on her before tying her arms and leaving. Later, a still alive L.G. frees Stretch before dying. Leatherface finds Stretch and the family capture her. Drayton scolds Leatherface when he finds out that Stretch was not killed. They torture her at the dinner table, but Lefty arrives and saves her. Stretch flees the grounds, with Chop Top chasing after her. Lefty wounds Drayton, then he and Leatherface get into a chainsaw fight, in which Leatherface is fatally wounded. The dying Drayton, accepting that he and his family have lost, takes a grenade from Nubbins's corpse and frags himself, Lefty, Leatherface and Grandpa.

Chop Top chases Stretch to the top of a stone tower in the amusement park. Stretch grabs a chainsaw from the corpse of the family's grandmother in a shrine and fatally wounds Chop Top, causing him to fall off the tower to his death. Stretch shouts in triumph and swings the chainsaw in the air.

Cast
Kinky Friedman appears in a cameo as Sports Anchorman, as does Dan Jenkins as T.V. Commentator and Joe Bob Briggs as Gonzo Moviegoer; Hooper also cameos.

Development
Following New Line Cinema's profitable 1981 theatrical re-release of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), director Tobe Hooper began developing a sequel to his original film. The project did not culminate until several years later, when The Hollywood Reporter announced the project in a November 2, 1983 trade advertisement.

The film was financed by Cannon Films as part of a three-picture deal the studio had struck with Hooper, having previously produced and distributed his films Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986). Hooper initially planned to serve only as a producer, but was enlisted as director when he could not find a director that the producers could afford. According to the documentary Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films, Cannon Films anticipated a straightforward horror film, while Hooper sought to make the sequel a black comedy. Hooper enlisted L. M. Kit Carson to write the screenplay, which he began in January 1986.

Casting
Gunnar Hansen was initially approached to reprise his role as Leatherface, but he claimed to have been offered "scale, plus ten percent" with the ten percent going to his agent. When he replied that he had no agent, they offered scale without the additional ten percent. Hansen found the offer too low. Unit publicist Scott Holton offered an alternate story claiming Hansen vacillated about the part and the offer was rescinded. Holton didn't believe the average viewer was even aware of who the original actors were, claiming "who are Neal, Hansen or Burns?"

Bill Moseley created a short film parody entitled The Texas Chainsaw Manicure, where he played a small role as the Hitchhiker and showed it to a screenwriter who was able to show it to Tobe Hooper. Hooper loved it and kept Moseley in mind for a part should he ever make a sequel. When the time came to cast Chainsaw 2, Moseley was contacted for the role of Chop Top, the Hitchhiker's twin brother.

Filming
Principal photography of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 began on May 5, 1986, in Austin, Texas metropolitan area. Shooting locations in the city included the Cut Rite chainsaw store, as well as the interiors of the former Austin American-Statesman building. The majority of the shoot occurred in and around the shuttered Matterhorn Amusement Park in Prairie Dell, which stood in for the fictional Texas Battle Land amusement park where the Sawyer family's lair is located.

Post-production
Several scenes were deleted by director Tobe Hooper due to pacing issues as mentioned on the 2000 Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Shocking Truth documentary. One lengthy scene that was cut from the film involves the Sawyer Clan heading out at night to collect prime meat for their chili by slaughtering patrons exiting a movie theater and a group of rowdy, rioting fans in a parking garage. The deleted slaughtering scene featured several elaborate Tom Savini special effects. The deleted scene at the movie theater also includes a cameo by American film critic Joe Bob Briggs.

Soundtrack

 * 1) The Lords of the New Church: "Good to Be Bad" – 4:42
 * 2) The Cramps: "Goo Goo Muck" – 3:02
 * 3) Concrete Blonde: "Haunted Head" – 2:48
 * 4) Timbuk3: "Life Is Hard" – 4:06
 * 5) Torch Song: "White Night" – 3:42
 * 6) Stewart Copeland: "Strange Things Happen" – 2:58
 * 7) Concrete Blonde: "Over Your Shoulder" – 3:20
 * 8) Timbuk3: "Shame on You" – 4:48
 * 9) The Lords of the New Church: "Mind Warp" – 3:42
 * 10) Oingo Boingo: "No One Lives Forever" – 4:08

"Crazy Crazy Mama" by Roky Erickson was used in the film but not included on the soundtrack album.

Marketing
The final poster design, featuring the family sitting together, is a parody of the poster for the 1985 teen comedy-drama film The Breakfast Club.

Box office
The film was released theatrically in the United States by Cannon Films on August 22, 1986. It earned over half of its budget back during its opening weekend, and went on to gross a total of $8,025,872 at the domestic box office.

Critical response
At the time of its release, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was met with mixed reviews from film critics. Roger Ebert awarded the film one star out of four, lambasting the film because it "goes flat-out from one end to the other, never spending any time on pacing, on timing, on the anticipation of horror. It doesn't even pause to establish the characters; Dennis Hopper has the most thankless task, playing a man who spends the first half of the movie looking distracted and vague, and the second half screaming during chainsaw duels." He also commented that it "has a lot of blood and disembowelment, to be sure, but it doesn't have the terror of the original, the desire to be taken seriously. It's a geek show." TV Guide's review was similarly negative, stating that "the film feels as if Hooper himself has nothing but contempt for the original and went out of his way to tear it down." The New York Times criticized the film, saying, "Hooper's direction is a little sloppy," and that the film "is not first-grade chopped steak."

AllMovie's review was favorable, writing, "much-hated at the time of its release, Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 has aged remarkably well, now playing as a strangely effective if none-too-subtle satire of several facets of '80s excess."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2 holds a 50% approval rating on film review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 32 reviews with an average rating of 5.1/10. Its consensus reads, "Without the tense atmosphere of its predecessor, the stakes feel lower, but The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 still shocks with a gonzo blend of over-the-top humor and gore." On Metacritic, the film holds a score of 42 out of 100 based on reviews from 13 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". It has since become a cult film.

Censorship
Similarly to the first film, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 faced significant censorship in numerous countries. In the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) refused to grant the film an R rating for theatrical release, despite it undergoing numerous cuts to tone down its violence. "I told [executive producers Menachem Golan and Yoram Globus], going in, that there was no way we could get an R rating on that picture," said Hooper, "but they kept chopping away at it." When the MPAA refused to grant the film anything less than an X rating, Cannon Films opted to release it without a rating.

The film was banned in Germany and Singapore, though the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft in Germany later gave the uncut version an 18 rating, and Singapore gave it an R21 (Restricted to under 21) rating after an appeal. When the film was submitted in the United Kingdom to the BBFC for a certificate, the BBFC notified Cannon, the distributor, that at least 20 to 25 minutes of footage would have to be trimmed in order for the film to be given an 18 rating. Cannon attempted to cut the film, but eventually gave up after numerous re-edited versions failed to pass the BBFC. The uncut version of the film was eventually given an 18 rating in 2001. When released in Ontario, Canada the film had 11 minutes cut after being rejected three times by Ontario censors.

The film was banned in Australia for 20 years. An uncut version was released on VHS by Warner Home Video in New Zealand in 1987, but could also be found (illegally, as the box proudly stated) in some Australian video stores at the time. The New Zealand VHS cassette has become very rare. In 2000, an unofficial VHS release was issued to retailers throughout Australia. This was done so illegally by a duplicating house, and without the knowledge of the OFLC. When news of the illegal copies leaked, a number of retailers were raided for possessing infringing copies. The duplicating house was similarly raided by Federal Customs. The film was finally passed for official release in Australia on November 30, 2006. The Uncut "Gruesome Edition" DVD was released on January 24 the next year.

Home media
In 1995, a bootleg VHS edition of the film circulated among video dealers and collectors, surfacing at a Fangoria convention in New York City. Hooper himself stated that this version resembled an early rough cut of the film, assembled prior to its submission to the MPAA.

On September 1, 1998, the film was released on VHS by MGM Home Entertainment as part of the MGM Movie Time collection (which was available exclusively through Warner Home Video). On August 1, 2000, the film was released on a region 1 DVD by MGM Home Entertainment. On October 10, 2006, the film received a second DVD treatment from MGM, entitled "The Gruesome Edition", which featured an audio commentary by director Tobe Hooper and David Gregory, director of Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Shocking Truth, as well as an audio commentary by actors Bill Moseley, Caroline Williams and special effects makeup creator Tom Savini. The special features also included deleted scenes, a feature-length documentary entitled It Runs in the Family, six still galleries and a trailer. A Blu-ray edition of the film was released on September 11, 2012 which featured all of the special features from the "Gruesome Edition" DVD.

Scream Factory released a Collector's Edition Blu-ray on April 19, 2016, which went out of print on August 6, 2020. On October 25, 2022, Vinegar Syndrome released a three-disc 4K UHD Blu-ray edition of the film with archival and newly-commissioned bonus features.

Sequel
The official sequel to the film was Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. In 1998, Tobe Hooper's son William Hooper, began work on All American Massacre, a short film that would be both a sequel and a prequel to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Hooper ran out of funds for post-production in 2000 and the film was never completed and released although the trailer leaked online in the early 2000s.

title: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2


text:
Robert Leckie (RCAF officer)

Air Marshal Robert Leckie, (16 April 1890 – 31 March 1975) was an air officer in the Royal Air Force and later in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and served as Chief of the Air Staff of the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1944 to 1947. He initially served in the Royal Naval Air Service during the First World War, where he became known as one of "the Zeppelin killers from Canada", after shooting down two airships. During the inter-war period he served as a Royal Air Force squadron and station commander, eventually becoming the RAF's Director of Training in 1935, and was Air Officer Commanding RAF Mediterranean from 1938 until after the beginning of the Second World War. In 1940 he returned to Canada where he was primarily responsible for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, transferring to the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1942.

Early life and background
Leckie was born in Glasgow, Scotland, where his father and grandfather were weavers. In 1909 his family emigrated to Canada, where he worked for his uncle John Leckie while living in West Toronto.

First World War
Leckie was initially commissioned into the 1st Central Ontario Regiment, and in late 1915 paid Can$600 to begin flying training at the Curtiss Flying School on Toronto Island. However, he had completed only three hours of training in the Curtiss Model F flying boat at Hanlan's Point, when the school was forced to close for the winter. At the urging of Sir Charles Kingsmill, the Chief of the Naval Staff of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Navy agreed to accept half of the class, and Leckie was sent to England. On 6 December 1915, he was commissioned as a probationary temporary flight sub-lieutenant in the Royal Naval Air Service, and posted to Royal Navy Air Station Chingford, for training. On 10 May 1916, having accumulated 33 hours and 3 minutes flying time, he was granted Royal Aero Club Aviator's Certificate No. 2923, and was then sent to RNAS Felixstowe for further training in flying boats. He was confirmed in his rank of flight sub-lieutenant in June, and in August was posted to RNAS Great Yarmouth to fly patrols over the North Sea.

Leckie's first success came on 14 May 1917, as pilot of Curtiss Model H-12 'Large America' No. 8666, under the command of Flight Lieutenant Christopher John Galpin. The aircraft left Great Yarmouth on patrol at 03.30 a.m. in poor weather with heavy rain and low cloud. The weather cleared as she approached the Texel, and at 4:45 a.m. she spotted the Terschelling Light Vessel, and a few minutes later Zeppelin L 22 about 10–15 miles away. The Curtiss increased speed and gained height, and Leckie took over the controls as Galpin manned the twin Lewis guns mounted in the bow. The Curtiss managed to approach to within half a mile before she was spotted, and the Zeppelin attempted to evade, but by then it was too late. The aircraft dived down alongside and Galpin fired an entire drum of incendiary bullets at a range of about 50 yards. The L 22 rapidly caught fire, and crashed into the sea. The Curtiss returned to Great Yarmouth by 7:50 a.m., and they found only two bullet holes, in the left upper wing and the hull amidships, where the Germans had returned fire. On 22 June, for his part in downing the L 22, Leckie was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, while Galpin received the Distinguished Service Order. On 30 June Leckie was promoted to flight lieutenant.

Another memorable patrol began for Leckie at 10.35 a.m. on 5 September 1917, again flying Curtiss H-12 No. 8666 from Great Yarmouth, under Squadron Commander Vincent Nicholl. They were accompanied by a de Havilland DH.4 biplane, and were again heading for Terschelling. However, they were only part-way to their destination when they unexpectedly encountered the Zeppelins L 44 and L 46 accompanied by support ships. The British aircraft were hit by enemy fire, but pressed their attack on the L 44. Nicholl noted several hits on the Zeppelin from his guns, but it did not catch fire. Leckie then turned the aircraft to attack the L 46, but it had turned rapidly away and was out of range, as was the L 44 by the time he turned back. Both British aircraft had been hit, and the DH.4's engine soon failed. The Curtiss had also been hit in one engine and one wing was badly damaged. The DH.4 was forced to ditch into the sea, and Nicholl ordered Leckie to put the aircraft down to rescue the two crew. However, now with six men aboard, damaged, and in heavy seas Leckie was unable to take off again. Some 75 miles from the English coast, the aircraft began to taxi towards home. Their radio was waterlogged, but they did have four homing pigeons. Nicholl attached messages to the birds giving their position and course and sent them off at intervals. After four hours the aircraft ran out of fuel, and began to drift, so they improvised a sea anchor from empty fuel cans to steady it. That night the damaged wing tip broke off, and each man then had to spend two hours at a time outside balanced on the opposite wing to keep the broken wing from filling with water and dragging the aircraft under. After three days at sea, the six men were suffering badly. They had no food and only two gallons of drinking water, gained from draining the radiators of their water-cooled engines. Finally, at dawn on 8 September, as search operations were about to be called off, one of the pigeons was found, dead from exhaustion, by the coastguard station at Walcot, and shortly after midday they were rescued by the torpedo gunboat HMS Halcyon (1894). Pigeon No. N.U.R.P./17/F.16331 was preserved, and originally kept in the officers' mess at RNAS Yarmouth, but is now on display at the RAF Museum Hendon. A brass plate on the display case bears the inscription "A very gallant gentleman".

On 31 December 1917 Leckie was appointed a flight commander. While on patrol on 20 February 1918, Leckie spotted an enemy submarine on the surface, and attacked it with bombs, seeing one strike the vessel as it dived, leaving a large oil slick. Leckie was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Service Order on 17 May 1918, only learning much later that he had not actually sunk it.

On 1 April 1918, the Royal Naval Air Service was merged with the Army's Royal Flying Corps to form the Royal Air Force, and Leckie transferred to the new service with the rank of lieutenant (temporary captain), though on 8 April he was promoted to the temporary rank of major.

On 4 June 1918 Leckie led an offensive patrol of four Felixstowe F.2A flying boats and a Curtiss H.12 towards the Haaks Light Vessel off the Dutch coast. They saw no enemy aircraft until one of the F.2A's, number N.4533, was forced down with a broken fuel feed-pipe. Five enemy seaplanes appeared, but seemed more interested in attacking the crippled F.2A. The remaining aircraft circled N.4533 as it taxied towards to the Dutch coast (where the crew eventually burned their aircraft before being interned), until ten more German seaplanes appeared. Leckie promptly led his small force into a head on attack, and a dogfight ensued which lasted for 40 minutes. Despite further mechanical difficulties – two other F2A's also had problems with their fuel pipes and had to effect makeshift repairs while in the middle of the action – two German aircraft were shot down, and four badly damaged before the Germans broke off the action, for the loss of one F.2A and the Curtiss (its crew survived to be interned by the Dutch), and one man killed. Leckie's force returned to Great Yarmouth, and in his report he bitterly remarked "...these operations were robbed of complete success entirely through faulty petrol pipes... It is obvious that our greatest foes are not the enemy..."

On the afternoon of 5 August 1918 a squadron of five Zeppelins took off from Friedrichshafen. They headed for the east coast of England, timing their flight to arrive off the coast just after dark. The leading airship, L 70 was commanded by Kapitänleutnant Johann von Lossnitzer, but also had Fregattenkapitän Peter Strasser, the Führer der Luftschiffe ("Leader of Airships"), the commander of the Imperial German Navy's airship force, on board. However, the airship squadron was spotted while out at sea by the Lenman Tail lightship which signalled their course and position to the Admiralty. Responding to the report Major Egbert Cadbury jumped into the pilot's seat of the only aircraft available, a DH.4, while Leckie occupied the observer/gunner's position. After about an hour they spotted the L 70 and attacked, with Leckie firing eighty rounds of incendiary bullets into her. Fire rapidly consumed the airship as it plummeted into the sea. Cadbury and Leckie, and another pilot Lieutenant Ralph Edmund Keys, then attacked and damaged another Zeppelin, which promptly turned tail and headed for home. All three received the Distinguished Flying Cross.

A few days later, on 11 August 1918 Leckie took part in another operation over the North Sea. Zeppelins often shadowed British naval ships, while carefully operating at higher altitudes than anti-aircraft guns or flying boats could achieve, and out of range of land based aircraft, so the Harwich Light Cruiser Force set out with a Sopwith Camel lashed to a decked lighter towed by the destroyer HMS Redoubt. When Leckie's reconnaissance flight reported an approaching Zeppelin, the Redoubt steamed at full speed into the wind, allowing the Camel's pilot Lieutenant Culley to take off with only a five-yard run. Culley climbed to 18,800 feet, approached the L 53 out of the sun, and attacked with his twin Lewis guns, setting the airship on fire.

On 20 August 1918 Leckie was appointed commander of the newly formed No. 228 Squadron, flying the Curtis H-12 and Felixstowe F.2A out of Great Yarmouth. Within three months the armistice brought the fighting to an end.

Inter-war career
Leckie remained with the RAF until 31 March 1919 when he was transferred to the unemployed list, and simultaneously seconded to the Canadian Air Force with the temporary rank of lieutenant colonel, to command the 1st Wing, Canadian Air Force. This unit comprised No. 81 Squadron (No. 1 Canadian), flying S.E.5 and Sopwith Dolphin fighters, and No. 123 Squadron (No. 2 Canadian), flying Airco DH.9A bombers, and was based at RAF Shoreham, Sussex. The Canadian Wing had been formed in August 1918 at RAF Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire, but never saw active service, and was eventually disbanded when the Canadian Expeditionary Force returned home.

On 1 August 1919 Leckie was granted a permanent commission in the Royal Air Force with the rank of major (later squadron leader), relinquishing his commission in the 1st Central Ontario Regiment of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada on the 31st.

On 15 December 1919 he was seconded for duty with the Canadian Air Board serving as Superintendent of Flying Operations. In this role he played a central role in the development of Canadian civil aviation, organizing and taking part in the first trans-Canada flight between Halifax and Vancouver. Leckie and Major Basil Hobbs flew from Halifax to Winnipeg between 7 and 10 October 1920, before other pilots and aircraft took over, finally arriving in Vancouver on the 17th.

Leckie's secondment ended on 27 May 1922, and he returned to Britain to be posted to the No. 1 School of Technical Training at RAF Halton on 8 June. On 25 September he was posted the RAF Depot (Inland Area) as a supernumerary officer, in order to attend the Royal Navy Staff College. On 5 July 1923 he was posted to the Headquarters of RAF Coastal Area.

On 1 January 1926 Leckie was promoted to wing commander, and on 16 March was posted to Headquarters, Mediterranean, where on 30 March he joined the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes (95) to serve as Senior Air Force Officer. He returned to the depot at RAF Uxbridge on 11 May 1927, and on 26 August was posted to Headquarters, Coastal Area, while he waited for HMS Courageous (50) to be commissioned. Following the completion of her conversion to an aircraft carrier Courageous was commissioned at Devonport on 14 February 1928, and on 21 February Leckie joined her as Senior Air Force Officer.

Leckie returned to dry land on 5 September 1929, when he was appointed commander of RAF Bircham Newton, Norfolk. On 11 April 1931 he became commander of No. 210 Squadron RAF, initially based at Felixstowe, and then RAF Pembroke Dock, flying the Supermarine Southampton Mk. II. On 1 January 1933 Leckie was promoted to group captain, and on 30 January he was appointed both Superintendent of the RAF Reserve and commander of RAF Hendon. On 21 August 1935 Leckie was also appointed an additional Air Aide-de-Camp to King George V, attending the King's funeral in that capacity on 28 January 1936, and was appointed Air Aide-de-Camp to King Edward VIII on 1 July 1936. Leckie was appointed Director of Training at the Air Ministry on 5 October 1936, taking over from Air Commodore Arthur Tedder, and was promoted to air commodore on 1 January 1937, handing over the post as Air Aide-de-Camp to the King to Group Captain Keith Park the same day. Leckie's tenure as Director of Training ended on 28 November 1938, and on 2 December 1938 he was appointed Air Officer Commanding, RAF Mediterranean, based at Malta.

Second World War
In 1940, Leckie was seconded to the Royal Canadian Air Force to establish the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) in Canada. By the end of the war BCATP had trained 131,553 air crew from 11 countries. On 5 August 1941 he was promoted to the acting rank of air vice-marshal, and served as Member of the Air Council for Training. On 6 April 1942 Leckie was placed on the RAF retired list on accepting a commission in the Royal Canadian Air Force. On 2 June 1943 he was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB). From 1 January 1944 until 31 August 1947 Leckie served as Chief of Staff, RCAF with the rank of air marshal.

For his service during the Second World War Leckie received the Order of Polonia Restituta (1st class) from the President of the Republic of Poland on 1 May 1945, and was also made a Commander of the Legion of Merit by the United States, and a Grand Officer of both the Belgian Order of the Crown and the Czechoslovakian Order of the White Lion. In July 1948 he was awarded the King Haakon VII Freedom Cross by the King of Norway "in recognition of distinguished services rendered in the cause of the Allies".

Post-war career
Leckie retired from the Royal Canadian Air Force on 1 September 1947, though he continued to take an interest in aviation, serving as a special consultant to the Air Cadet League.

Air Marshal Leckie died on 31 March 1975, the last surviving wartime Chief of the Air Staff, aged 84. He was survived by his widow, Bernice, and two sons.

Leckie was inducted into the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame in 1988.

title: Robert Leckie (RCAF officer)


text:
Alignment (role-playing games)

In some role-playing games (RPGs), alignment is a categorization of the moral and ethical perspective of the player characters, non-player characters, monsters, and societies in the game. Not all role-playing games have such a system, and some narrativist role-players consider such a restriction on their characters' outlook on life to be overly constraining. However, some regard a concept of alignment to be essential to role-playing, since they regard role-playing as an exploration of the themes of good and evil. A basic distinction can be made between alignment typologies, based on one or more sets of systematic moral categories, and mechanics that either assign characters a degree of adherence to a single set of ethical characteristics or allow players to incorporate a wide range of motivations and personality characteristics into gameplay.

Dungeons & Dragons
The original Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) game created a three-alignment system of law, neutrality and chaos. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, this became a two-dimensional grid, one axis of which measures a "moral" continuum between good and evil, and the other "ethical" between law and chaos, with a middle ground of "neutrality" on both axes for those who are indifferent, committed to balance, or lacking the capacity to judge. This system was retained more or less unchanged through the 2nd and 3rd editions of the game. By combining the two axes, any given character has one of nine possible alignments:

Neutral in this scheme can be one of two versions: Neutral, those who have no interest in (or no ability to care about) the choice between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos; or "True Neutral", meaning those who not only actively remain neutral but believe it is necessary to enforce the balance of the world on others, and would act in any required fashion to bring about that balance. According to Ian Livingstone, alignment is "often criticized as being arbitrary and unreal, but... it works if played well and provides a useful structural framework on which not only characters but governments and worlds can be moulded."

In the 4th edition of the game, the alignment system was simplified, reducing the number of alignments to five. The 5th edition of D&D returned to the previous two-axis system. However, it also decoupled alignment from most of the D&D game mechanics; instead, alignment in this edition is more of a flexible roleplaying guide.

Warhammer FRP
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay originally used a linear five-place system: Law – Good – Neutral – Evil – Chaos. In changes of alignment (for whatever reason) a character moved one place along to the next position (e.g.: a neutral character could move to good or evil but not to chaotic).

In practice, the system was used to regulate reactions between characters of different alignments.

In the newer edition, the concept of alignment (and the presence of Law as the antithesis of Chaos) has been discarded, with more emphasis on the personalities and unique natures of characters, rather than a linear alignment system.

Palladium
Palladium uses a system where alignments are described in detailed terms of how a character acts in a certain situation: whether they will lie, how much force they will use against innocents, how they view the law, and so on. The alignments are organized into three broad categories: Good, Selfish, and Evil. The seven core alignments are Principled (Good), Scrupulous (Good), Unprincipled (Selfish), Anarchist (Selfish), Aberrant (Evil), Miscreant (Evil), and Diabolic (Evil). An eighth alignment, Taoist, was introduced in the Mystic China supplement, but has not seen wide use.

Each category contains answers to a set of questions on moral behaviours. For example, given the question "Would you keep a wallet full of cash you found?", most selfish or evil alignments would keep it, while most good alignments would seek to return the wallet to its owner. The categories are not organized into a pattern like Dungeons & Dragons. The system specifically does not include any sort of "neutral" alignment on the grounds that a neutral point of view is antithetical to the active role heroes and villains should play in a story.

Star Wars
The alignments of the Wizards of the Coast Star Wars Roleplaying Game are limited to "light side" and "dark side", though there are variations within these.

In the older West End Games version of the game, behaviour is controlled with Force points which indicate one use of it per point. When using The Force for evil deeds, the character gains a Dark Side point which can accumulate and put the character at risk of being turned to the Dark Side at a periodic die role, at which point the player loses control of their character and becomes a non-player villain character. By contrast, heroic deeds using The Force allow the player to remove the point. In addition, using The Force heroically at a dramatically appropriate moment, such as Luke Skywalker firing his proton torpedoes in the Death Star's exhaust port in the Battle of Yavin, enables the player to not only regain the force point but also gain another.

World of Darkness
Characters in White Wolf's old World of Darkness (WoD) games have "Nature" and "Demeanour" characteristics that describe how the characters really are and how they behave superficially. The Nature and Demeanour are freeform, allowing players to create new types.

Additionally, in White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade and derivatives (such as Ghouls: Fatal Addiction), vampire and human characters may have a "Humanity" trait ranging from 0 to 10. The higher levels are the compassionate and humane while the lower levels are psychopathic (further enhanced by the predatory nature of the vampire psyche). The average non-magic human has a Humanity score of about 7 or 8. Other paths (moral philosophies) were created for vampire types. The path mechanic was sharply criticized for providing an "out" for gamers to avoid having to pay in-game penalties for actions which would exact them from a character on the humanity path. Kindred of the East provided a system for "dharmas" which superficially resembled path mechanics, but was meant to represent the character's mastery of an occult philosophy rather than to gauge its moral state.

This has changed with the re-imagining of the World of Darkness setting. In the new editions of the White Wolf games (new World of Darkness, Vampire: The Requiem, Mage: The Awakening, etc.), all characters have a morality trait ranked from 0 to 10, though what it is called varies from game to game, and what sorts of behaviour will raise or lower it depend on the character type as well (in Vampire: The Requiem it is still called humanity and is affected by the same behaviours). In addition to this, all characters have a virtue and a vice based upon the traditional seven of each, which represents their major (though not only) vice and virtue. This is intended to illustrate that even the very good are never perfect, although characters with a score closer to 10 will be much more capable of avoiding evil behaviour while characters of lower moral tone will begin to care less about such and simply revel in being wicked.

Additionally, unlike Dungeons & Dragons in which every character is subject to at least a cursory moral classification, not all World of Darkness characters are subject to morality. Some beings, such as very old and very powerful Spirits (like the Idigam), or entities from the Abyss (like the Acamoth) are beyond manifest conception and thus are outside any measure of useful definition.

Unlike the majority of other role-playing games, the World of Darkness "alignment" system is meant not to reflect philosophical convictions about 'right' and 'wrong', which are left entirely up to the creator of the character. Instead, they represent the generalities of the character's state of mind. Believing in or adhering to a certain set of abstract moralisms is not considered to be as strong a motivating factor as the concrete conditions of what a character's personality may bring them to do. While philosophical moralism may play a strong role in a character's thought, lifestyle, and development, these may be violated with only minor to moderate repercussions, depending on the situation, while striking out against a character's basic temperament carries strong psychological consequences, and the behaviour of comprehensively changing a character's disposition takes a great deal of time and diligence. This system was designed specifically by White Wolf in order to avoid having characters pigeonholed as stereotypical heroes and villains who are often driven by beliefs so strong they seem to be psychic imperatives. It was created with the goal in mind of enforcing the moral and ethical 'grey area' within which the World of Darkness setting as a whole resides, and generating focus around the struggle of each character throughout the Chronicle (WoD Campaign) to reconcile their personality with their beliefs and the situations which test them.

d20 Modern
d20 Modern uses "allegiance", an ordered list of groups and ideals the character is aligned with, ranked in approximate order of increasing priority. Characters' allegiances determine a 'rule of thumb' for their reactions to situations, in that they will generally favour the interests or outlook of their highest allegiance, or their next where the first does not apply. This generally allows for snap-decisions on moral or ethical questions, in keeping with the rapid pace of gameplay.

DC Heroes
DC Heroes from Mayfair Games (now known as MEGS, Mayfair Exponential Game System) used the characteristic "motivation" to describe a character's ethical behaviour. This is selected from a list divided into "heroic" (upholding the good, responsibility of power, seeking justice, thrill of adventure, and unwanted power) and "villainous" (mercenary, thrill seeker, psychopath, power lust, and nihilist). In the MEGS licensed game Blood of Heroes by Pulsar Games, a set of "anti-heroic" variations on some of the heroic and villainous motivations were presented, allowing characters to exist in moral and ethical gray areas.

To enforce the motivations, players are awarded or deducted character points, which have various uses, depending on their actions. For instance, good characters are awarded points for good and heroic behaviour while evil behaviour can cost them.

GURPS
GURPS uses "mental disadvantages" to model the personality of character ("good" and "evil" personality traits are disadvantages because they limit or impose behaviour). Mental disadvantages include ordinary personality traits (honest, curious, shy, bad temper), phobias (scotophobia, triskaidekaphobia), mental illnesses (delusions, hallucinations, manic depression), and various self- or externally imposed behaviours (vow, code of honour, addiction). Characters gain extra development points by taking disadvantages, allowing them to buy more advantages and skills. However, only the extremes of behaviour are defined as strong disadvantages, while normal predilections and preferences are referred to as "quirks". Also, if a normally-disadvantageous personality trait is used for a character in a game where it would actually be advantageous, it is termed an advantage and costs points.

Unknown Armies
Characters in Unknown Armies (UA) have "passions": specific stimuli that bring out certain behaviours and reflect the character's deepest personality traits. Every character has one "fear passion" that gives the character a bonus chance to escape a specific kind of frightening stimulus, one "rage passion" that helps the character lash out against a particular frustrating stimulus, and one "noble passion" that provides a bonus to selfless behaviour for the sake of some greater cause. Passions are invented freeform during character creation, but each fear passion is tied to one of the five types of psychological stress in UA: violence, helplessness, isolation, self, or the unnatural.

Alternate methods
Some games have used other methods to encourage certain behaviours. For instance, superhero games like Marvel Super-Heroes and DC Heroes each have points that players could earn with heroic behaviour or lose with inappropriate actions. Given that these points could be used to improve their characters, or affect dice roll results in their favour, the players have an incentive to have their characters behave heroically and morally to earn them. The Star Wars RPG by West End Games uses the rules governing the use of the Force for the same purpose.

title: Alignment (role-playing games)


text: User talk:192.139.27.18

title: User talk:192.139.27.18


text:
Four-Power Authorities

Following the defeat of Nazi Germany and then the partition of German territory, two Four-Power Authorities, in which the four main victor nations (the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and France) managed equally, were created.

The intended governing body of Germany until it could run itself was called the Allied Control Council. The commanders-in-chief exercised supreme authority in their respective zones and acted in concert on questions affecting the whole country. The capital Berlin, which lay in the Soviet sector, was also divided into four sectors.

Only two jointly run four-power organizations survived the division of Germany. Both were in West Berlin, Germany, and existed during the Cold War from 1948 to 1989. These were the Berlin Air Safety Center and Spandau Prison (which was demolished in 1987 when Rudolf Hess, the sole remaining prisoner, died).

Status
These two organizations were uniquely four-powered in that American, British, French, and Soviet authorities cooperated in their management. This was different from the intensely adversarial relations the allies had with the Warsaw Pact leader in almost every other aspect of world affairs during this time. Both organizations remained low-profile and secretive during their existences to avoid highlighting the politically sensitive nature of their interactions and cooperations.

title: Four-Power Authorities