text:
User talk:Bhuston/Archive 01

Image:W don cornwell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:W don cornwell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Absent referent
An article that you created, Absent referent, has been proposed for deletion, for the following reason:

 * Subject may not be notable enough to merit an article; see notability guidelines.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet these standards and remove the deletion notice. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion; note that in this case, the article may be discussed further at Articles for deletion. Thank you – Gurch 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

An article that you created, Absent referent, has been listed for deletion at Articles for deletion/Absent referent. The reason for the listing is explained there. Discussion will now take place on that page to determine whether the article is deleted. You are welcome to participate in the discussion; however, please do not remove the deletion notice from Absent referent while the discussion is in progress. Thank you – – Gurch 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Absent referent survived the Afd!! Yay!! --Bhuston 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
My revert was self explanatory.-Bharatveer 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Contract law
Hi Bhuston, thanks for the warning. You're right about style, etc. But the page was slightly all over the place already. Maybe you agree though that the biggest style problem is the lack of proper referencing and structure? You're right, I did delete some stuff. Was it things you'd written? The validity of contracts is really just renamed 'contractual formation'. I think that's more correct, because validity encompasses the third section of the article, now: 'setting a contract aside'. And so you saw a lot of repetition. What I never would delete are good references, because these make law. I'm basically going straight from a textbook, by Ewan McKendrick (now down the bottom of the page) and I think the first thing to do is get the categories right. User:Wikidea

 * Don't you think you need to begin by responding to some, or perhaps at least one of the comments I put on the page? There are quite a few. Or the comment above here? Do you always accuse people of vandalism? You've just reverted, for the third time, a whole host of new and valuable additions. User:Wikidea

 * Answered on Talk:Contract Bhuston 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Persuasion
Try not to get carried away. Most academics regard techniques of persuasion (such as what I am "doing to you" with this message :-) as distinct from "mind control" techniques such as brainwashing, thought reform and deprogramming.

Readers turn to an encyclopedia both to explore similarites and to learn about distinctions. --Uncle Ed 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Answered on Talk:Mind control --Bhuston 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

test
test --Bill Huston | Talk 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bill Huston User talk:Bhuston <--- Why doesn't this work right?

Image:Imclogo.gif and User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia
The image is tagged with logo. As such, it may not be used on User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia. Whether it is in fact in the public domain is, at this point, irrelevant. We do not permit non-free license tagged images outside of the main article namespace. If you want to use this image, then determine what the source of the image is and contact that source to determine if they have released their rights. We can not do this based on assertions of our users; we must have a verifiable means of determining the release of rights from the image. Somebody created the image. Who? How to contact them so we can verify? Did they release their rights and if so where is the proof? I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again without doing as suggested above or similar. Using this image on that page, when you know what the policy is, is vandalism. I'm happy to help you work through this, but re-inserting the image in violation of our policies is not an acceptable route to go. Thanks, --Durin 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Durin, you said, "I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again". Just to point out, I don't think I reverted your removal, and the edit history does not show this. I've been around here long enough to understand the gravity of copyvios. So unless you used your super-admin-powers to modify the edit history, I would ask you to retract your assertion that I reverted. Accusations of vandalism are quite serious, and I would like you to set the record correct. --Bill Huston (talk)  10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Lost in the shuffle, I removed an instance of the image, received your message and then removed another instance of the same image from your userspace . When I first received your message, I did not know to exactly which page you were referring. When I found the second page, I made the (false) presumption that you had reverted the removal of the fair use image. Consider the record set straight, and I apologize for the error. --Durin 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana
I spend a fair amount of my wikipedia time removing the inaccuracy that cannabis is exclusively marijuana; please dont get in the way. Keep in mind that this is not an American but an international encyclopedia (I am not American myself). Also remember that the governments of the world do consider cannabis to be a drug and for the most part an illegal drug. That may not be nice but we are both old enough to know that we have to live with it, SqueakBox 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I can appreciate your hard work, but a couple of points. I never said "cannabis is exclusively marijuana", I said "cannabis is a plant genus". I said that "cannabis (drug)" is quite awkward, and may not be ideal according to Wikipedia naming conventions. I called for a discussion, and am quite astounded by the arrogance and cavallier attitudes of you and others who a) removed the merge tag, b) were hostile to a DISCUSSION of the issue, etc. Much of what Wikipedia is has to do with discussion, persusaion, and consensus building. I was met with "I am opposed to debate", and "please don't get in the way". Thanks for pointing out that "marijuana" is a predominantly American term. If I might point that Wikipedia does not belong to you, and you should be open to a discussion, and not meet other Wikipedia members with overt hostility. --Bill Huston (talk)  14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I didnt remove the merge tag and I did engage in debate with you, making my reasons very clear, and hopefully persuaded you (a) that cannabis is considered a drug and (b) that marijuana is an exclusively US term for some but not all of what cannabis users consume when they take this plant as a drug. You seem to be the one who is narked not me, SqueakBox 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, argument maps
Hi Bill,

You probably remember some animated logical dancing on my part over the saga of. You even accused me of being a logician I recall!

Some more of my maps have been tagged as violating the NPOV policy and I thought that you would be a good person to notify. I am canvassing your thoughts on these images:

Image:Anonymous Lefty excluded middle.png, Image:False dichotomy public transport.png and Image:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png. Thanks for any consideration. Regarding the excluded middle, see also some comments I solicited on this article talk page - Grumpyyoungman01 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Onechectomy
I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the and w/o the   to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs
I am sorry for my belated reply, for I have been a bit busy the last few days.

I have a minimal involvement in this matter, but perhaps a bit of research might help here, since what has occurred is a bit complex. I will present a timeline below.

 * Kwertii starts the page in June of 2005.
 * In July 2007, Cerejota moved the page to a different title, in which I later deleted the resulting redirect after the deletion of the article.
 * On 06:35, 24 July 2007, Corpx tags the article for deletion.
 * Just two minutes later (06:37, 24 July 2007), Krimpet deletes the article, with the reasoning "indiscriminate BLP nightmare". I believe that since the article had been deleted so swiftly, Corpx did not create the nomination page.
 * A day later (06:22, 25 July 2007), Madsci recreated the article, apparently unaware of the deletion prior. Note that this is not vandalism, although it may seem so when reading the history.
 * WWGB nominates the article for speedy deletion with the reason "pointless list, could go on forever"; User:Butseriouslyfolks declines and advises to take the article to AfD.
 * WWGB tags the article and nominates it for deletion.
 * During the AfD, Corpx nominates for speedy deletion because of G4; Natalie Erin declines as G4 doesn't apply.
 * The wub speedy closes the AfD and snow deletes the article.
 * A month later, a courtesy restore, userfy and delete by The wub.

If you feel that the article was not given the proper attention, please discuss with Krimpet or The wub first before going to deletion review.  Singu larity  21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

 * Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.

 * The WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.

 * Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.

 * Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

 * Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.

 * Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.

 * Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.

 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template talkheader may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

 * There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User categories for discussion on -isms
Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

 * The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

 * The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.

 * Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.

 * Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.

 * Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wskg.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Wskg.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kleśā
Hey Bill -

FWIW, I officially "retired" from WP in January. (This will be my first non-anon edit in about six months.) Nonetheless, I appreciated your thoughtful talk page note and didn't want you to wait for a reply from me unnecessarily. In short, change the Kleśā page in any way you see fit. I suspect whatever change you make will be intelligent, thoughtful and useful (though, frankly, even if it weren't, it's all good to me now).

If I may toss out a possibly simple approach to modifying the current text:

(1) in the intro section, start a second paragraph at the sentence beginning "In early Buddhist text..." and then add a third intro paragraph regarding yogic material.

(2) Rename the "Other literature" to something like "Yogic literature" or whatever you think meaningful.

Or, of course, please, please, please, feel free to totally ignore what I write here. Just: no need to await my response any longer. You're free to be bold with Kleśā :-)

Wet-diaper baby in lap ... GTG, Larry (larryrosenfeld@earthlink.net)

Professional journalism
Just to let you know that I've nominated "Professional journalism" for deletion. Bluehotel (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-knowledge
Hi Bhuston, I see you've changed the Self-knowledge redirect to point to a disambig. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you clean up the links that now need fixing? Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 10:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Bill Huston  (talk)  20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done (I think :) --Bill Huston (talk)  02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! Cheers, -- Ja Ga  talk 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Precautionary principle.png
Thank you for uploading File:Precautionary principle.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:The Inner World of OFNR (NVC).png
Bill,

I've temporarily removed this file from the Nonviolent Communication article. As per policy the Commons, "directly visible personal tags...inside an image created by yourself are strongly discouraged". Could you please remove "diagram created by WilliamAHuston@gmail.com" from the file? Please let me know if you need more clarification. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Fixed. --Bill Huston (talk)  00:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Kingturtle = (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Delusion (spirituality)

The article Delusion (spirituality) has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Without any references, this appears to be WP:OR, and there is nothing to support that this topic is notable. Without references this appears to be a made up topic per WP:MADEUP or WP:SYN. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 * In response to the Proposed Deletion tag added by User:Steve_Quinn, I am removing the tag, as permitted by the WP:PROD process.

 * Steve, while I appreciate you trying to improve the quality of WP, I'm wondering if perhaps this time you have acted in haste. You site the lack of references indicates that this may be original research. I agree there is presently a lack of external references.

 * First, I'm wondering if you noticed the Stub tag indicating a longer article is forthcoming?

 * Second, I'm wondering if you followed any of the WP internal links? Such as avidya, klesha, or ego?

 * Had you, I think you would have found that my short contribution is already well-supported in existing WP pages. Follow this link and check out how many pages refer to the sanskrit word moha or avidya in the context of delusion:

 * Please allow me a couple of weeks to expand this stub, and I can support this with external references. Thanks! --Bill Huston (talk)  07:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Of course take three or four weeks to expand the article. Rome was not built in a day. Pertaining to your above query:

 * First, a stub does not indicate a longer article is forthcoming. As often as not someone creates a stub, and moves on. Second, the internal links are not considered reliable sources WP:RS, which are WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

 * "To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

 * In other words, opening with the phrase, "in eastern spirituallity..." is a very broad, and general stroke. Which eastern spirituallity? All of them? Probably not. Hence, the only conclusion I could reach was that this was someone's belief, not based on reliable sources. A belief is WP:OR, unless it is notable as shown by having reliable sources added to the article. The sources must say already what you are writing, not really the other way around. However, apparently you are sure this is notable - so you will probably find sources which back up what you are writing - within the next several weeks. Also, when expanding an article I find it is easier to report what the sources are saying, rather than making stuff up and then trying to find sources.

 * Anyway, I am not User talk:NuclearWarfare. The reason for the change by this editor is this short discussion here. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for discussing this with me. It is much appreciated. And I notice that you are s contributor to Wikipedia yourself. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi Steve, yes I have gratitude for his exchange. There is learning here for all parties, and Wikipedia will be better for this discussion.

 * OK! I hear you about the sources! I will get you sources!
 * thanks for the extra time... :)

 * I have been studying Indian philosophy for three years. This same thing (about delusion) is located in the teachings of Yoga, Vedanta, and Buddhism. This is most remarkable and noteworthy because there are so many schools there (at least 9) all with a slightly different take on things. Yet, the idea that the world is Maya seems to permeate much of Indian thought. This fundamental vision of reality, this precise definition and revelation of consciousness and God has spread from India to beyond (Tibet, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Viet Nam, etc.). So, yes, I would say much of Eastern Spirituality.

 * And why Spirituality? Well, the root of 'spirit' is L. 'aspirae', to breathe. There is a nexus between the material body and the unbounded consciousness which occurs exactly at the breath.

 * People highly trained in the material sciences have a blind spot here, it seems. Science only wants to talk about things which can be described as existent in the material world of space/time.

 * Science can't find the Self, the Soul, or the Center of Consciousness anywhere in the brain (and it's dissected billions!). Consciousness cannot be found anywhere in space/time! This is why they call it 'the hard problem' of cognitive science.

 * Science denies that animals are conscious, which helps make the animals slave/slaughter trades function. Science is blind to God, therefore science denies the consciousness of God.... Unfortunately for materialism, the trickster called Quantum Mechanics has demanded that these issues be confronted. Yet, presently, science stands confounded and speechless.

 * As the breath connects the body to the soul, the breath should be a major point of attention and inquiry! And it is, largely, in the East. And it is also largely disregarded (or worse) in the West.

 * It should be called Eastern Spirituality because it is in stark contrast to Western Materialism. I made this point in the disambiguation page, which User:NuclearWarfare sought to reverted into non-existence, without any comment as to why the action occurred. Thanks for sharing the link, BTW. Grateful.

 * One reason why this is so very notable is the age of this information. This information is at least 3,500 years old. It is contained in some of the oldest texts in the human cannon. Materialism is only largely 500 years old.

 * My last point should be more directed to User:NuclearWarfare. There is an explicit bias which can occur when deciding whether or not 'KEYWORD' directs to 'MEANING-1' or 'DISAMBIGUATION'. DISAMBIGUATION should be preferred, unless there is a clear indication that one topic was primary, because this bias wants to be avoided.

 * Yet, according to a group led by User:NuclearWarfare decided that the Western, Materialist, Psychiatric definition of delusion is primary over a meaning which exists in Sanskrit literature at least 3,500 years, perhaps older than 5,000 years. I find this quite curious and I would like to understand the rational here, especially since materialism is maybe 500 years old (Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Galileo)

 * I would hope that Wikipedia does not exhibit a Western, Materialist bias, because I have studied both deeply, and I will tell you this:

 * Western Materialist values seem to me to have caused the Earth to come to a point of crisis, where every system seems to be failing, and humanity might be heading towards a mass die-off, if we are not careful.

 * It is urgent for Materialist West to hear the message of Eastern Spirituality, and be presented on an equal par. Because this ancient information comes (back) to humanity at a critically important time and could help avert much suffering.

 * Thank you for this discussion! All the best to you -- BH
 * The name of Wikipedia articles is not given based on what one editor thinks is important for people to know (WP:GREATWRONGS), but rather on the primary use of the word (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Quoting from the latter page, "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." It is pretty clear even with just a basic background knowledge of Hinduism/Indian history that the psychiatric definition is the one that most people, even Indian or Hindu, would think of. This is evidenced by the fact that the spirituality article was merely created this week, while the psychiatric article was created 8 years ago. NW ( Talk ) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, following your invitation at WT:WikiProject Medicine, I'd like to add a few thoughts for your consideration. You are a long-term contributor, so please excuse me if you already know this. First of all, I agree with the other editors who believe that "delusion" has a primary topic – and that is the psychiatric meaning. To argue that there is no unique primary topic would require demonstrating that the body of literature using the spiritual meaning is comparable in size to that using the psychiatric meaning, and I don't believe you will be able to do that. The age of the literature will not count, since English words often change their meaning over time and archaic uses of a term are rarely a notable topic for a general encyclopedia such as ours - Britannica also has an article only on the psychiatric meaning. Nevertheless, you may be able to can show that Delusion (spirituality) is a notable topic and deserves a separate article from Avidyā, but you will need to demonstrate that the term is used in independent reliable sources. It may be best if you work on a version of the article in your own userspace. You could create User:Bhuston/Delusion (spirituality) (by clicking that redlink) and copy the contents of this page as a starting point, then work on it at your leisure, without other editors raising concerns. You can always move it over the current redirect when you have finished sourcing and expanding it. To disambiguate, it would only require a hatnote at Delusion, indicating the spiritual meaning. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I think RexxS is right. It's the volume (and quality) of sources that matters, not their age.  If you look into scholarly sources (not just scholarly scientific sources), delusion is primarily used in the psychiatric sense.  This is therefore what most sources mean when they use this term, and what most readers will be looking for under this term.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mis-tagging of non-minor edits as minor
Please do not tag all of your edits as minor. In particular, do not tag non-minor edits as minor. Please see WP:MINOR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * For my reference, can you tell me which edit you have an issue with? Thanks -- Bill Huston (talk)  02:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This one hit my watchlist, but talk page comments, removing prods(!), changing (or adding or removing) templates, none of these are minor. It appears that you tag your edits as minor by default; the default should be non-minor. Please see WP:MINOR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bhuston/Archive 01


text:
David Lewis (Canadian politician)

David Lewis (born David Losz; June 23 or October 1909 – May 23, 1981) was a Canadian labour lawyer and social democratic politician. He was national secretary of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) from 1936 to 1950 and one of the key architects of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961. In 1962, he was elected as the Member of Parliament (MP), in the House of Commons of Canada, for the York South electoral district. While an MP, he was elected the NDP's national leader and served from 1971 until 1975. After his defeat in the 1974 federal election, he stepped down as leader and retired from politics. He spent his last years as a university professor at Carleton University, and as a travel correspondent for the Toronto Star. In retirement, he was named to the Order of Canada for his political service. After suffering from cancer for a long time, he died in Ottawa in 1981.

Lewis's politics were heavily influenced by the Jewish Labour Bund, which contributed to his support of parliamentary democracy. He was an avowed anti-communist, and while a Rhodes Scholar prevented communist domination of the Oxford University Labour Club. In Canada, he played a major role in removing communist influence from the labour movement.

In the CCF, he took the role of disciplinarian and dealt with internal organizational problems. He helped draft the Winnipeg Declaration, which moderated the CCF's economic policies to include acceptance of capitalism, albeit subject to stringent government regulation. As the United Steelworkers of America (USW)'s legal counsel in Canada, he helped them take over the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers (Mine-Mill). His involvement with the USW also led to a central role in the creation of the Canadian Labour Congress in 1956.

The Lewis family has been active in socialist politics since the turn of the twentieth century, starting with David Lewis's father's involvement in the Bund in Russia, continuing with David, and followed by his eldest son, Stephen Lewis, who led the Ontario NDP from 1970 until 1978. When David was elected the NDP's national leader in 1971, he and Stephen became one of the first father-and-son-teams to simultaneously head Canadian political parties.

The Bund and Jewish life in the Pale
David Losz was born in the Russian Empire sometime after Svisloch's first snowfall in October 1909 to Moishe Losz and his wife Rose (née Lazarovitch). His official birth date of June 23 was the one he gave the immigration officer when he arrived in Canada. Lewis's political activism began in the shtetl he lived in until 1921. Svisloch was located in the Pale of Settlement, the westernmost region of the Russian Empire, in what is now Belarus. After World War I, it became a Polish border town, occasionally occupied by the Soviet Union during the Polish-Soviet War of the early 1920s. Jewish people were in the majority, numbering 3,500 out of Svisloch's 4,500 residents. Unlike many of the other shtetls in the Pale, it had an industrial economy based on tanning. Its semi-urban industrial population was receptive to social democratic politics and the labour movement, as embodied by the Jewish Labour Bund.

Moishe (or Moshe) Losz was Svisloch's Bund Chairman. The Bund was an outlawed socialist party that called for overthrowing the Tsar, equality for all, and national rights for the Jewish community; it functioned both as a political party and labour movement. Lewis spent his formative years immersed in its culture and philosophy. The Bund's membership, although mostly ethnically Jewish, was secular humanist in practice.

Moishe and David were influenced by the Bund's political pragmatism, embodied in its maxim that "It is better to go along with the masses in a not totally correct direction than to separate oneself from them and remain a purist." David would bring this philosophy to the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and New Democratic Party (NDP); in clashes between the parties' "ideological missionaries and the power pragmatists when internal debates raged about policy or action", he was in the latter camp.

When the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War were at their fiercest, in the summer of 1920, Poland invaded, and the Red Russian Bolshevik army counter-attacked. The Bolsheviks reached the Svisloch border in July 1920. Moishe Losz openly opposed the Bolsheviks and would later be jailed by them for his opposition. When the Polish army recaptured Svisloch on August 25, 1920, they executed five Jewish citizens as "spies". Unsafe under either regime and with his family's future prospects bleak, Moishe left for Canada in May 1921, to work in his brother-in-law's Montreal clothing factory. By August, he saved enough money to send for his family, including David and his siblings, Charlie and Doris.

David Lewis was a secular Jew, as was Moishe. However, his maternal grandfather, Usher Lazarovitch, was religious and, in the brief period between May and August 1921 before David emigrated, gave his grandson the only real religious training he would ever receive. David did not actively take part in a religious service again until his granddaughter Ilana's Bat Mitzvah in the late 1970s. In practice, the Lewis family, including David, his wife Sophie, and their children Janet, Nina, Stephen, and Michael, were atheists.

Early life in Canada
The family came to Canada by boat and landed in Halifax, Nova Scotia in Autumn 1921. They then went by rail to Montreal to meet Moishe Lewis. David Lewis was a native Yiddish speaker and understood very little English. He learned it by buying a copy of Charles Dickens' novel The Old Curiosity Shop and a Yiddish-English dictionary. A Welsh teacher at Fairmount Public School, where Lewis was a student, helped him learn English but also passed on his Welsh accent.

Lewis entered Baron Byng High School in September 1924. He soon became friends with A.M. (Abe) Klein, who became one of Canada's leading poets. He also met Irving Layton, another future prominent Canadian writer, to whom he acted as a political mentor. Baron Byng High School was predominantly Jewish because it was in the heart of Montreal's non-affluent Jewish community, and was ghetto-like because Jews were forbidden from attending many high schools.

Besides poets, at high school, Lewis met Sophie Carson, who eventually became his wife. Klein, their mutual friend, introduced them. Carson came from a religious Jewish family. Her father did not approve of Lewis, because he was a recent immigrant to Canada, and in Carson's father's opinion had little to no possibility of success.

After high school, Lewis spent five years at McGill University in Montreal: four in arts and one in law. While there, he helped found the Montreal branch of the Young People's Socialist League. He gave lectures sponsored by this anti-communist socialist club, and was its nominal leader. One of his favourite professors was Canadian humorist, and noted Conservative party proponent, Stephen Leacock, whom Lewis liked more for his personality than for his discipline, economics.

In his third year, Lewis founded The McGilliad campus magazine. It published many of his anti-communist views, though the December 1930 issue included an article he wrote expressing his approval of the Russian Revolution and calling for a greater understanding of the Soviet Union; throughout his career, he would attack communism, but would always have sympathy for the 1917 revolutionaries. Also at McGill, Lewis met and worked with prominent Canadian socialists like F. R. Scott, Eugene Forsey, J. King Gordon, and Frank Underhill. He would work with all of them again in the 1940s and 50s in the CCF.

Rhodes Scholarship and Oxford
With Scott's encouragement, Lewis applied for a Rhodes Scholarship during his first year at law school. The interviews for the Quebec representative were conducted in Montreal. The examining board included the then-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), Sir Edward Beatty. In response to a question about what he would do if he became prime minister, Lewis stated that he would nationalize the CPR. Despite this answer and his socialist views in general, his responses to the board's cross-examination satisfied them that he was not a communist, and they awarded him the scholarship.

Political involvement
When David Lewis entered Lincoln College, Oxford, in 1932, he immediately took a leadership role in the university's socialist-labour circles. Michael Foot, the future leader of the British Labour Party, mentioned in an interview that Lewis was, "the most powerful socialist debater in the place. I don't think with any rival ... He had a very powerful influence indeed amongst students, partly because he had so much more experience than the rest of us but partly because he had brilliant debating powers. I mean one of the best I've ever heard. If you talk of tough political debates, well, he was absolutely unbeatable ... I knew him [at Oxford] when I was a Liberal [and] he played a part in converting me to socialism."

When Lewis came to Oxford, the Labour Club was a tame organization adhering to Christian activism, or genteel socialist theories like those expressed by R.H. Tawney in his book The Acquisitive Society. Lewis's modified Bundist interpretation of Marxism, which Smith labels "Parliamentary Marxism", ignited renewed interest in the club after the disappointment of Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government.

The Oxford newspaper Isis noted Lewis's leadership ability at this early stage in his career. In its February 7, 1934, issue, while Lewis was president, they wrote of the club: "The energy of these University Socialists is almost unbelievable. If the Socialist movement as a whole is anything like as active as they are, then a socialist victory at the next election is inevitable."

In February 1934, British fascist William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) visited Oxford. Lewis and future Ontario CCF leader Ted Jolliffe organized a noisy protest by planting Labour Club members in the dance hall where Joyce was speaking and having groups of two and three of them leave at a time, making much noise on the creaking wooden floors. They were successful in drowning out Joyce, and he did not complete his speech. Afterward, a street fight erupted between Joyce's Blackshirt supporters and members of the Labour Club, including Lewis.

Lewis prevented the communists from making inroads at Oxford. Ted Jolliffe stated "there was a difference between his speeches at the Union and his speeches at the Labour Club. His speeches at the Union had more humour in them; the atmosphere was entirely different. But his speeches at the Labour Club were deadly serious ... His influence at the Labour Club, more than anyone else's, I think, explains the failure of the Communists to make headway there.  There were so many naive people around who could have been taken in." He increased the Labour Club's membership by three quarters by the time he left.

In accordance with Bundism, Lewis rejected violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bund insisted that the revolution should be through democratic means, as Marx had judged possible in the late 1860s, and that democracy should prevail afterward. Influenced by Fabianism, Lewis became an incrementalist in his approach to replacing non-socialist governments. As Lewis biographer Cameron Smith points out:

"So what he ended up with was a modified Bundist interpretation of Marxism. Call it, if you will, Parliamentary Marxism. It was a Marxian analysis of economics and a parliamentary approach to politics. And if David were forced to choose, he would have chosen Parliamentary over Marxism."

Lewis was a prominent figure in the British Labour Party, which, in emphasizing parliamentary action and organizational prowess, took an approach similar to the Bund's. Upon his 1935 graduation, the party offered him a candidacy in a safe seat in the British House of Commons. This left Lewis with a difficult decision: whether to stay in England or go home to Canada. If he had stayed in England, he likely would have been a partner in a prominent London law firm associated with Stafford Cripps and become a cabinet minister the next time Labour formed a government. Cripps, then a prominent barrister and Labour Party official, was grooming Lewis to be Prime Minister. Lewis's other choice was to return to Montreal and help build the fledgling Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), with no guarantee of success. A personal note from J. S. Woodsworth, dated June 19, 1935, asked Lewis to take this latter option; in the end, he did.

Oxford Union
Besides his political involvement, Lewis was active with the Oxford Union, probably the most prestigious and important debating club in the English-speaking world. His first debate, in January 1933, was on the resolution "That the British Empire is a menace to International good will"; Lewis was one of the participants for the "Aye" side. They lost.

The February 9, 1933, debate brought Lewis some level of early prominence. The resolution was "That this House will under no circumstances fight for its King or Country" and was so controversial that it was news around the British Empire and beyond. Lewis again spoke for the "Aye" side. They won overwhelmingly and caused a newspaper uproar throughout the Empire. The Times of London entered the fray by pooh-poohing those who took the Union and their motion seriously.

Lewis became a member of the Union's Library Committee on March 9, 1933, and its treasurer in March 1934. After two failed attempts, he was narrowly elected president in late November 1934. He was president during the Hilary term, from the beginning of January until the end of April 1935. The Isis commented that "... David Lewis ... will be, beyond question, the least Oxonian person ever to the lead the Society. In appearance, background, and intellectual outlook he is a grim antithesis to all the suave, slightly delicate young men who for generations have sat on the Union rostrum ..."

Return to Canada
Sophie Carson had accompanied Lewis to Oxford, and they wed August 15, 1935, shortly after their return. The wedding took place in his parents' home; though a rabbi officiated, most traditional Jewish practices were not observed.

In 1935, David Lewis became the National Secretary of the CCF. As Smith puts it: Into this political whirlwind stepped David. A centralist in a nation that was decentralizing. A socialist in a country that voted solidly capitalist. A campaigner for a party with no money, facing two parties each of which was big, powerful, and affluent. A professional, in a party of amateurs who mostly thought of themselves as a movement, not a party. An anti-Communist at a time when Canadian Communists were about to enter their heyday. A publicist seeking a unified voice for a party riven with dissent. An organizer whose leader, J.S. Woodsworth, really didn't believe in the organization, thinking that the CCF should remain a loosely knit, co-operative association and believed this so implicitly that when it came time to appoint Lewis full-time to the job of the national secretary [in 1938] he resisted, fearing the CCF would lose its spontaneity.

That Lewis not only survived but prevailed is a testament to his skill and perseverance.

Most of the founders of the CCF – including Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas, M. J. Coldwell, and Stanley Knowles, – were informed by the Social Gospel, to which Lewis, with his Marxist socialism balanced by the Bund's democratic principles, felt an affinity. Both the Bund and the Social Gospel were focused on the material present rather than the afterlife. Both called on people to change their environment for the better rather than hoping that God might do it for them. Social justice, the brotherhood of man, and moral self-improvement were common to both.

It became obvious after the October 1937 Ontario election that the CCF needed an image change; it was seen by the electorate as too far left. F. R. Scott pointed this out to Lewis in a letter, recommended moderating some of the party's policies, and advised that "... in the political arena we must find our friends among the near right."

In August 1938, Lewis quit his job at the Ottawa law firm of Smart and Biggar to work full-time as the CCF National Secretary. His starting salary was $1,200 per year, a low sum of money, even at that time, for a job with so much responsibility.

Trying to create an organization
As National Secretary, Lewis emphasized organization over ideology and forging links to unions. He worked to moderate the party's image and downplay the Regina Manifesto's more radical language, which seemed to scare off moderate voters. The offending language included "No CCF government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning". Lewis, federal leader M.J. Coldwell, and Clarie Gillis would spend the next 19 years trying to modify this declaration, finally succeeding with the 1956 Winnipeg Declaration.

At the 1944 CCF convention, Lewis won a concession "that even large business could have a place in the party – if they behave." Rather than opposing all private enterprise, Lewis was concerned with preventing monopoly capitalism. He passed a resolution reading "The socialization of large-scale enterprise, however, does not mean taking over every private business. Where private business shows no signs of becoming a monopoly, operates efficiently under decent working conditions, and does not operate to the detriment of the Canadian people, it will be given every opportunity to function, to provide a fair rate of return, and to make its contribution to the nation's wealth." This resolution allowed for a mixed-economy that left most jobs in the private sphere.

Lewis did not share the desire of some members to keep the CCF "ideologically pure", and adhered to the Bundist belief that "it was better to go along with the masses in a not totally correct direction than to separate oneself from them and remain 'purist'." However, the CCF was as much a movement as it was a political party, and its own members frequently undermined it with radical proclamations. Lewis criticized the British Columbia CCF for such comments, saying "... what we say and do must be measured by the effect which it will have on our purpose of mobilizing people for action. If what we say and do will blunt or harm our purpose ... then we are saying and doing a false thing even if, in the abstract, it is true ... When, in heaven's name are we going to learn that working-class politics and the struggle for power are not a Sunday-school class where the purity of godliness and the infallibility of the Bible must be held up without fear of consequences."

David Lewis was the party's "heavy", which did not help his popularity among CCF members, but after witnessing what he considered to be the European left's self-destruction in the 1930s, he was quick to end self-immolating tactics or policies. He would tolerate some criticism of the party by its members, but when he believed that it rose to self-mutilation, he suppressed it ruthlessly. This was most apparent when Lewis attacked and discredited Frank Underhill and his handling of Woodsworth House. Early in Lewis's career, Underhill was one of his mentors; this did not matter when Woodsworth House was stricken with financial difficulties in the late 1940s. Lewis was quick to blame and then discharged Underhill and the rest of the Woodsworth executive of their responsibilities. It was an unfortunate event that cost the CCF in the academic and intelligentsia world. To sum up Lewis's reign, discipline and solidarity were paramount. There had to be limited to discussion and tolerance of dissenting views.

Make This Your Canada
In 1943, Lewis co-wrote Make This Your Canada with F. R. Scott, then the CCF's National Chairman. The book's main argument was that national economic planning had proven itself during wartime with the King government's imposition of wage and price controls through the Wartime Prices and Trade Board. Lewis and Scott further argued that its wartime success could translate to peacetime, and that Canada should adopt a mixed economy. They also called for public ownership of key economic sectors, and for the burden to be placed on private companies to demonstrate that they could manage an industry more effectively in the private sector than the government could in the public sector. The book also outlined the history of the CCF up to that time and explained the party's decision-making process. By Canadian standards, the book was popular, and sold over 25,000 copies in its first year of publication.

1943 Cartier by-election
Lewis first ran for the CCF in the 1940 federal election in York West. He placed a distant third, receiving 8,330 fewer votes than the second-place Liberal candidate, Chris J. Bennett. Despite his poor showing in his first election, the party asked Lewis to run in the 1943 by-election in the Montreal, Quebec, federal riding of Cartier, made vacant by the death of Peter Bercovitch. Lewis's opponents included Fred Rose of the communist Labor–Progressive Party. It was a vicious campaign, immortalized by A. M. Klein in an uncompleted novel called Come the Revolution. The novel was broadcast in the 1980s on Lister Sinclair's Ideas programme on CBC Radio One. If the Communist rhetoric could be believed, "Lewis was a Fascist done up in brown."

Rose won and became the only (as of 2013), Communist, to sit in the House of Commons. Lewis placed fourth. The sizable Jewish vote mostly went to Rose. The leftist "common front" punished Lewis by supporting Rose, who was seen to be of the community; Lewis lived in Ottawa at the time. It took Lewis many years to recover from this campaign, and its reverberation coloured Lewis's decision on where to run.

1945 elections: disappointment and defeat
The Canadian federal and the Ontario elections of 1945 were possibly the most crucial to Canada in the 20th century. They took place at the beginning of the welfare state, and the elections would set the course of political thought to the end of the century and beyond. The year was a disaster for the CCF, both nationally and in Ontario. It never fully recovered, and in 1961 would dissolve and become the New Democratic Party. As NDP strategist and historian Gerald Caplan put it: "June 4, and June 11, 1945, proved to be black days in CCF annals: socialism was effectively removed from the Canadian political agenda."

The anti-socialist crusade by the Ontario Conservative Party, mostly credited to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) special investigative branch's agent D-208 (Captain William J. Osborne-Dempster) and the Conservative propagandists Gladstone Murray and Montague A. Sanderson, diminished the CCF's initially favourable position: the September 1943 Gallup poll showed the CCF leading nationally with 29 percent support, with the Liberals and Conservatives tied for second place at 28 percent. By April 1945, the CCF was down to 20 percent nationally, and on election day it received only 16 percent.

Another factor in the CCF's defeat was the unofficial coalition between the Liberal Party of Canada and the communist Labor-Progressive Party. It guaranteed a split in the left-of-centre vote.

Lewis ran in Hamilton West instead of the CCF-friendly Winnipeg North riding that had elected CCF and Labour Party candidates since the 1920s and had a substantial Jewish population. Historians and activists disagree on Lewis's reasons for doing so, but Caplan suggests that the shock of the Cartier election probably made him reluctant to fight another intense campaign against a Jewish Communist candidate. Whatever his reasons, he was soundly defeated. In the 1949 federal election, Lewis ran again in the Hamilton area, in the riding of Wentworth. He lost again, placing a relatively distant third.

Fighting Communist influence
The 1945 defeats were partially the result of an alliance between the Liberals and the communist Labor–Progressive Party (LPP). The LPP focused in on CCF-held seats, deliberately splitting the vote, and declared a "Liberal–Labour" coalition on May 29, 1944. They declared open warfare on the CCF in 1944, with spokesman John Weir stating in the LPP's Canadian Tribune newspaper that "a resounding defeat of the CCF at the polls must be [their] the main objective."

The Canadian Congress of Labour (CCL) supported the CCF, but the Trades and Labour Congress (TLC) refused to officially endorse them. This lack of unity between the two main Canadian umbrella labour organizations hurt the CCF, and was part of the Liberal–Communist alliance: TLC president Percey Berough was a Liberal, and vice-president Pat Sullivan was a Communist.

In the Ontario provincial election, the communists urged trade union members to vote for the right-wing Conservative George Drew rather than the CCF.

Lewis and Charles Millard, of the Canadian Congress of Labour, decided to purge organized labour's decision-making bodies of communists. Their first target was the Sudbury, Ontario, CCF riding association and its affiliated International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers (Mine-Mill) Local 598. However, Local 598 was not under Communist control: out of 11,000 dues-paying members, fewer than 100 were communists. Over the next twenty years, a fierce and ultimately successful battle was waged by Millard's United Steel Workers of America (USW) to take over Local 598.

The attacks on the Sudbury CCF were even more costly, at least in terms of voter support. Sudbury's Bob Carlin was one of the few CCF Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) to survive the Drew government's 1945 landslide victory. Carlin had been part of Ted Jolliffe's team that had orchestrated the CCF's 1943 breakthrough but was first and foremost a union man. He was a long-time labour organizer, going back to 1916 and the predecessor to the Mine-Mill: the Western Federation of Miners. Carlin was loyal to his union, in whose service he had spent ten years, and to the men and woman who helped build it, regardless of their political affiliation; this made him unpopular with the CCF establishment in both Toronto and Ottawa.

Millard, Jolliffe, and Lewis did not directly accuse Carlin of being a communist. Instead, they attacked him for not dealing with communists in Local 598, which was built by both communists and CCFers (with the latter firmly in control of the executive). Lewis and Jolliffe made the case to expel him from the Ontario CCF caucus at a Toronto special meeting of the CCF executive and the legislative caucus on April 13, 1948. In essence, Carlin became a casualty of Steel's plans to raid Mine-Mill. The CCF lost the seat in the 1948 Ontario election, placing fourth. The Conservatives won the seat and Carlin, as an independent, finished a close second. It was not until the CCF became the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Mine-Mill versus USW war was over, in 1967, that another social democrat – Elie Martel in Sudbury East – was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the city.

Lewis and Millard's crusade to limit communist influence received an unexpected boost from the Soviet Union, in Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 denunciation of Stalinism. In his "Secret Speech", On the Personality Cult and its Consequences, delivered to a closed session of the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev denounced Stalin for his cult of personality and his regime for "violation of Leninist norms of legality". When the excesses of Stalin's regime were exposed, it caused a split in the communist movement in Canada and permanently weakened it. By the end of 1956, the LPP's influence in the trade union movement and politics was spent.

Private labour law practice
Lewis resigned as national secretary in 1950 and moved to Toronto to practise law in partnership with Ted Jolliffe. He became the chief legal advisor to the USW's Canadian division, and assisted them in their organizing efforts and battles with the Mine-Mill union. Lewis focused on his law practice for the next five years. In his first year, he paid more in income tax than he had earned annually as CCF National Secretary.

He bought his first house, in the Bathurst Street – St. Clair Avenue West area of Toronto, during this period. After his father Moishe died in 1951, his mother Rose moved into the 95 Burnside Drive Lewis home from Montreal. This is the home where his son Stephen Lewis would spend his teenage years, and the other three children would grow up.

Winnipeg Declaration and the New Party
Although he gave-up day-to-day running of the party's organization, he stayed on the national executive as the English-speaking vice-president from 1950 to 1954. After four years of comparatively limited involvement with CCF internal politics, Lewis became the party's national chairman, by winning the election to replace Percy Wright. He, along with Lorne Ingle, the person that replaced him as national secretary in 1950, became the main drafters of the 1956 Winnipeg Declaration, which replaced the Regina Manifesto. The lead-up to the August 1956 CCF convention had Lewis working full-time in his labour practice, including work on the merger of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress to form the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), and putting in long hours organizing the committee that wrote the Declaration. He collapsed in his office in May 1956; after administering several tests for a possible cardiac condition, the doctors concluded that Lewis collapsed of exhaustion. He stayed in bed for a week and recovered enough to help the Declaration pass ten weeks later. The Winnipeg convention was the CCF's swan song. Even with the Declaration ' s modified tone, which removed state planning and nationalization of industry as central tenets of the party's platform, the CCF suffered a crippling defeat in the 1958 federal election, which became known as the "Diefenbaker sweep". It was obvious to Lewis, Coldwell and the rest of the CCF executive that the CCF could not continue as it was, and, with the co-operation of the CLC, they started exploring how to broaden its appeal.

CCF President
In 1958, Lewis worked closely with the CLC's president, Claude Jodoin, and the CLC's executive vice-president Stanley Knowles to merge the labour and social-democratic movements into a new party. Coldwell did not want to continue as the party's national leader, because he lost his parliamentary seat in the election. Lewis persuaded him to stay on until the new party was formed. Lewis was elected party president at the July 1958 convention in Montreal, which also endorsed a motion for the executive and National Council to "enter into discussions with Canadian Labour Congress" and other like-minded groups to lay the groundwork for a new party.

Leadership succession crisis
By 1960, progress was being made in creating a new party, but Lewis had to again act as the disciplinarian. Since Coldwell lost his seat, he was constantly considering resignation but was repeatedly dissuaded by the party. With Coldwell lacking a seat, the CCF caucus chose Hazen Argue as its leader in the House of Commons. During the lead-up to the 1960 CCF convention, Argue was pressing Coldwell to step down. This leadership challenge jeopardized plans for an orderly transition to the new party. Lewis and the rest of the new party's organizers opposed Argue's manoeuvres, and wanted Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas to be the new party's first leader. To prevent their plans from derailing, David Lewis attempted to persuade Argue not to force a vote at the convention on the question of the party's leadership. He was unsuccessful. There was a split between the parliamentary caucus and the party executive on the convention floor. Coldwell quit and Argue replaced him as a leader.

In July 1961, the CCF became the New Democratic Party (NDP). They elected Tommy Douglas as their leader by a convincing 1391 to 380 margin over Argue. Six months later, Argue quit the party and crossed the floor to join the Liberals.

In the mid-1970s, David Lewis reflected on this incident and he concluded that he had not handled the leadership transition well:

"I, as president of the CCF, was very much in the wrong in trying to get a unanimous vote for Tommy. It arose out of a tradition we had had – no one opposed Woodsworth, no one had opposed Coldwell. They were chosen. I met with Hazen and tried to dissuade him from being a candidate. It was wrong. This attitude produced bitterness around the Hazen-Douglas contest."

1962–1971: Member of Parliament for York South
Two days after the end of the NDP's 1961 founding convention, Tommy Douglas wrote a letter to Sophie Lewis, David's wife, telling her that David must run in the next election. Lewis decided to run in his home riding of York South, which was concurrently held provincially, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, by the NDP's Ontario leader, Donald C. MacDonald.

Diefenbaker's government had to call an election sometime in 1962, so there was time to plan Lewis's campaign. He had two campaign managers: his son Stephen and Gerry Caplan. One of their main strategies was to gain votes in the riding's affluent Jewish enclave in the Village of Forest Hill. Lewis, however, was perceived by the Jewish community as an outsider because he did not take part in community events or belong to a synagogue. His opposition to the creation of the state of Israel, a result of his Bundist politics, also did not sit well with the mostly Zionist community. It took extra effort on Stephen's and Caplan's parts to convince community members that David was a legitimate Jewish voice and that he would not harm their businesses. Besides resistance from the Jewish community, in his role as party national vice-president David Lewis had to tackle the impending doctors' strike in Saskatchewan, the result of the CCF government's implementation of Medicare. He called the province's doctors "blackmailers" for suggesting such a strike. Lewis also appeared on one of the NDP's few national television spots. He appeared on the national CTV Television Network with Walter Pitman to present the NDP's platform on a planned economy, in a conversation-style election broadcast. On June 18, 1962, Lewis was elected in York South, and finally became an MP. Since Tommy Douglas lost in his seat, Lewis was considered the front-runner to become house leader until Douglas entered the house in an October by-election.

 * New Democratic Party
 * David Lewis
 * align="right"|19,101||align="right"|40.42

 * Liberal
 * Marvin Gelber
 * align="right"|15,423 ||align="right"|32.64

 * Progressive Conservative
 * William G. Beech
 * align="right"|12,552||align="right"|26.56

Lewis's first term as MP was a short one, as Diefenbaker's minority government was defeated in the April 8, 1963, general election. Lewis lost in Forest Hill, as his support among its Jewish community evaporated and returned to the Liberals, who were seen as best able to contain the Social Credit Party, which was perceived to be anti-Semitic. This was only a temporary set-back. With Diefenbaker in opposition (and unlikely to resurrect the coalition in Quebec that gave him his majority in 1958) and Social Credit a diminished force, Lewis returned to the House of Commons in the 1965 general election. He was re-elected in the 1968 election, and became the NDP leader in the House of Commons after Douglas lost his seat. At the 1969 Winnipeg National Convention, Douglas announced that he intended to step down as leader by 1971, which meant that Lewis became the de facto leader in the interim.

The October 1970 Quebec FLQ Crisis put Lewis in the spotlight, as he was the only NDP MP with any roots in Quebec. He and Douglas were opposed to the October 16 implementation of the War Measures Act. The Act, enacted previously only for wartime purposes, imposed extreme limitations on civil liberties, and gave the police and military vastly expanded powers for arresting and detaining suspects, usually with little to no evidence required. Although it was only meant to be used in Quebec, since it was federal legislation, it was in-force throughout Canada. Some police services, from outside of Quebec, took advantage of it for their own purposes, which mostly had nothing even remotely related to the Quebec situation, as Lewis and Douglas suspected. Sixteen of the 20 members of the NDP parliamentary caucus voted against the implementation of the War Measures Act in the House of Commons. They took much grief for being the only parliamentarians to vote against it. Lewis stated at a press scrum that day: "The information we do have, showed a situation of criminal acts and criminal conspiracy in Quebec. But, there is no information that there was unintended, or apprehended, or planned insurrection, which alone, would justify invoking the War Measures Act." About five years later, many of the MPs who voted to implement it regretted doing so, and belatedly honoured Douglas and Lewis for their stand against it. Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield went so far as to say that, "Quite frankly, I've admired Tommy Douglas and David Lewis, and those fellows in the NDP for having the courage to vote against that, although they took a lot of abuse at the time....I don't brood about it. I'm not proud of it."

Leader of the NDP
Stephen Lewis was coming into his own during this period. In 1963, at the age of 26, he was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Following the engineered 1970 resignation of Donald C. MacDonald, Stephen was elected leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party. During the early-to-mid-1970s, the father-and-son-team led the two largest sections of the NDP.

In February 1968, Stephen Lewis, as a supposed representative of the Ontario NDP legislative caucus, asked the 63-year-old Tommy Douglas to step down as leader so that a younger person could take over. Donald C. MacDonald stated that Lewis was not representing the caucus, but acting on his own. Though Douglas was taken aback by the suggestion, his defeat in the ensuing election bolstered Stephen's case and on October 28, 1969, Douglas announced that he would step down as leader before the NDP's 1971 convention.

David Lewis ran to succeed Douglas as national leader. The 1971 leadership convention was a tumultuous affair. A new generation of NDP activists known as The Waffle proposed many controversial resolutions, including nationalization of all natural resource industries and support for Quebec Sovereignty. It took the combined efforts of the NDP establishment—and the sizable trade union delegation—to vote down these resolutions, which caused many bitter debates and sharply divided the convention. Lewis, as the leading establishment figure, won the party's leadership on April 24 in a surprisingly close race that required four ballots before he could claim victory over the Waffle's James Laxer. Laxer had been prominently featured in media coverage leading up to and during the convention. Lewis's perceived heavy-handedness in dealing with The Waffle at this and previous conventions made him many enemies, as had his involvement in most of the CCF and NDP's internal conflicts during the previous 36 years. Many members who had felt his wrath as party disciplinarian plotted their revenge against him. At his first press conference after winning the leadership, Lewis stated that he was not beholden to the Waffle, as they were soundly defeated at the convention, and that he made no promises to them. He also warned the party's Quebec wing that they could continue to theorize about possible self-determination resolutions, but that come election time they must pledge themselves to the party's newly confirmed federalist policy. He did not purge the Waffle from the NDP, but left it to his son Stephen to do in June 1972, when the party's Ontario wing resolved to disband the Waffle or kick its members out of the party if they did not comply with the disbanding order.

David Lewis led the NDP through the 1972 federal election, during which he uttered his best-known quotation, calling Canadian corporations "corporate welfare bums", a term also used in the title of his 1972 book Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums. This election campaign also employed the first dedicated plane for the NDP leader's tour, dubbed "Bum Air" by reporters, because it was a slow, twin-engine, turbo-prop driven Handley Page Dart Herald. In previous campaigns, the party's leader, Tommy Douglas, had to use commercial Air Canada flights to get around during the election, with few people in his entourage.

The 1972 election returned a Liberal minority government and elected the greatest number of NDP MPs until the 1980 election, and left the NDP holding the balance of power until 1974. The NDP propped up Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government in exchange for the implementation of NDP proposals such as the creation of Petro-Canada as a crown corporation. Lewis wanted to topple the government in a vote of no-confidence as early as possible because he saw no strategic advantage to support the Trudeau government: he believed that Trudeau would get the credit if a program was well-received and that the NDP would be vilified if it was unpopular.

In hindsight, Lewis's no-win evaluation of the situation appears correct: the party would not be rewarded for its efforts by the electorate. In the 1974 election, the NDP were reduced to 16 seats. Lewis lost his seat, leading him to resign as party leader in 1975. It was revealed immediately after the election that he had been battling leukemia for about two years; he had reportedly kept everyone, including his family, unaware of his condition.

Final years
Lewis became a professor at the Institute of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa during this time. In 1978, as a travel correspondent for The Toronto Star, Lewis visited Svisloch one last time, and noted that, "not one Jew now lives there." The Holocaust wiped out the town's Jewish community, and with it his extended family.

He completed the first volume, of a planned two, of his memoirs, The Good Fight: Political Memoirs 1909–1958 in 1981. He died of leukemia shortly thereafter, on May 23, 1981, in Ottawa. He is the father of Stephen Lewis, a former Ontario NDP leader and was the United Nations Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa post-political career. His other son, Michael Lewis, was a former Ontario NDP Secretary and a leading organizer in the NDP. He is also the father of Janet Solberg, president of the Ontario NDP in the 1980s. His other twin daughter is Nina Libeskind, the wife and business partner of architect Daniel Libeskind. Stephen's son, broadcaster Avram (Avi) Lewis, is his grandson. In 2010, his granddaughter-in-law Naomi Klein, gave the inaugural David Lewis Lecture, sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Awards and honours
In December 1976, Lewis was named as a Companion of the Order of Canada and was invested into it on April 20, 1977. He was appointed to the highest level of the Order of Canada in "recognition of the contributions he has made to Labour and social reform and the deep concern he has had over the years for his adopted country." David Lewis Public School in Scarborough, Ontario is named in his honour.

Electoral record
Note: "National Government" vote is compared to Conservative vote in 1935 election.

 * Progressive Conservative
 * LENNARD, Frank Exton Jr.
 * align="right"|16,443

 * Liberal
 * HICKS, Henry Arnott
 * align="right"| 13,312

 * Co-operative Commonwealth
 * LEWIS, David
 * align="right"| 11,638

 * Independent
 * GILES, Charles
 * align="right"|562
 * }

 * Progressive Conservative
 * LENNARD, Frank Exton Jr.
 * align="right"|16,443

 * Liberal
 * HICKS, Henry Arnott
 * align="right"| 13,312

 * Co-operative Commonwealth
 * LEWIS, David
 * align="right"| 11,638

 * Independent
 * GILES, Charles
 * align="right"|562
 * }

York South

 * New Democratic Party
 * David LEWIS
 * align="right"|19,101

 * Liberal
 * Marvin GELBER
 * align="right"|15,423

 * Progressive Conservative
 * William G. BEECH
 * align="right"|12,552

 * Liberal
 * Marvin GELBER
 * align="right"| 21,042

 * New Democratic Party
 * David LEWIS
 * align="right"| 17,396

 * Progressive Conservative
 * William G. BEECH
 * align="right"|9,648

 * New Democratic Party
 * David LEWIS
 * align="right"|21,693

 * Liberal
 * Marvin GELBER
 * align="right"| 18,098

 * Progressive Conservative
 * Maxwell ROTSTEIN
 * align="right"| 6,427

 * New Democratic Party
 * David LEWIS
 * align="right"|12,357

 * Liberal
 * Ron  BARBARO
 * align="right"|11,693

 * Progressive Conservative
 * Cy TOWNSEND
 * align="right"|4,499

 * New Democratic Party
 * David LEWIS
 * align="right"|14,225

 * Liberal
 * Lucio  APPOLLONI
 * align="right"|9,551

 * Progressive Conservative
 * John M. OOSTROM
 * align="right"| 6,401

 * Unknown
 * Keith  CORKHILL
 * align="right"|172

1971 leadership convention results
Held in Ottawa, Ontario on April 24, 1971.

Archives
There is a David Lewis fonds at Library and Archives Canada. Archival reference number is R6773.

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

title: David Lewis (Canadian politician)


text:
Church of God of Prophecy

The Church of God of Prophecy (COGOP) is a Holiness Pentecostal Christian Church. It is one of six Church of God bodies headquartered in Cleveland, Tennessee that arose from a small meeting of believers who gathered at the Holiness Church at Camp Creek near the Tennessee/North Carolina border on Saturday, June 13, 1903. The Church of God of Prophecy has congregations and missions in over 130 countries, with a membership of over 1,500,000. Membership in the United States as of 2006 was 84,762 in 1,871 churches. Ministries of the Church include homes for children, bible training institutes, youth camps, ministerial aid, and Spirit and Life Seminary. The Church operates Fields of the Wood, a Bible theme park and popular tourist attraction, near Murphy, North Carolina.

History
The Church has, in the past, internally referred to itself as "Church of God" in its worship services. Many past official records utilized that name with the parenthetical qualifier of "(Cleveland, Tennessee)". However, the more generic moniker fell out of common official use many decades ago. There was controversy over which side of the division had the legal right to the name and who was really the true "Church of God". This (COGOP) body was definitely a part of the original "Church of God", over which originally A. J. Tomlinson was the general overseer. In 1923, these two Churches became divided over church idealism (specifically, the matter of divorce and re-marriage) which could not be compromised on or resolved by either side, (the one Church of God would be governed by twelve men in the upper room "called elders" and the other Church would be governed and overseen by one man A.J. Tomlinson). In 1952, after lengthy litigation over the use of the simple name "Church of God", a court in Bradley County, Tennessee ordered that the Tomlinson faction add "of Prophecy" to their name, because this "Church of God" then viewed itself as the New Testament Church of the last days, or so the court reasoned. Thereafter, the Church uses the appellation "Church of God of Prophecy". Both groups claim the same history up to the year 1923.

Early history
In August 1886, Elder Richard Spurling (1810-1891), an ordained Baptist minister associated with the Latter Rain movement, rejected the dominant Landmark Baptist views of the Church, which he believed were too credal and exclusive. With seven members from Holly Springs and Pleasant Hill Missionary Baptist churches in Monroe County, Tennessee, and Cherokee County, North Carolina, he organized the Christian Union. These Christians hoped to free themselves from man-made creeds and unite on the principles of the New Testament. In September 1886, Spurling's son, Richard G. Spurling Jr (1857-1935), was ordained as pastor of the Christian Union congregation. He also formed two other congregations. The father and son shared a vision to restore the Church.

Around 1895, a revival under the preaching of B. H. Irwin swept into the area. Richard G. Spurling accepted Irwin's teachings on holiness, but was wary of the extreme direction in which he felt the movement was headed. The Shearer Schoolhouse Revival of 1896 helped to move Spurling's group away from the general faith and practice of Baptists and toward that of the Holiness Movement. In 1902, R. G. Spurling influenced a Holiness group led by W. F. Bryant to form the Holiness Church at Camp Creek, North Carolina. Spurling was elected pastor and Bryant was ordained as a deacon. The next year brought into the Church an energetic and powerful leader, Ambrose Jessup Tomlinson, or A. J. Tomlinson. Tomlinson, a former Quaker, who experienced an inner change of regeneration and sanctification, came in 1899 to the Appalachian region as a missionary. He became acquainted with Spurling and Bryant and caught Spurling's vision of the restoration of the Church. He united with the Church at Camp Creek on June 13, 1903, and soon became the acknowledged leader.

New churches were organized in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. The first annual meeting of all the churches was held in 1906 in Cherokee County, North Carolina, and the name "Church of God" was adopted in 1907. Tomlinson professed a baptism of the Holy Ghost experience in 1908, which firmly established the Church as part of the Pentecostal Movement. This took place under the preaching of Gaston B. Cashwell, a minister who was very influential in bringing Pentecostalism to North Carolina, the Appalachians and the east coast. Tomlinson was elected general overseer of the Church of God in 1909.

The present day Church of God of Prophecy officially accepts the Bible as God's holy word, inspired, inerrant, and infallible and as the highest authority in matters of faith and practice. This expression, rightly divided, is evidence that the early 20th century organizers of the Church of God of Prophecy were heavily influenced by the works of C. I. Scofield, in particular his writings on dispensationalism.

In 1923, the Church of God was disrupted by matters concerning finance and governance, leading to a division. The largest body resulting from the division exists as the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). What is now known as the Church of God of Prophecy was the smaller body and remained under the leadership of Tomlinson. Tomlinson continued as general overseer over this Church until his death in 1943.

The presbytery believed that God directed them to bring the younger son, Milton Ambrose Tomlinson (1906–1995), forward to leadership. The General Assembly confirmed this in 1944, and he became the general overseer of the Church. The additional phrase of Prophecy was added to the name on May 2, 1952. Under Milton Tomlinson's leadership, the Church began the White Wing Publishing House, White Wing Christian Bookstores, The Voice of Salvation radio and TV programs, and numerous other ministries. In 1961, the publishers at the White Wing Publishing House and Press considered M. A. Tomlinson to be "God's spokesman", a belief which was shared among the Church at large. M. A. Tomlinson served as general overseer until 1990. Past educational institutions include the Church of God of Prophecy Bible Training Institute, and also Tomlinson College, both of which are now defunct. Both institutions were located in Cleveland, Tennessee.

Schisms
In 1943–44, Homer Aubrey Tomlinson, older brother of Milton, left to form a denomination headquartered in Queens Village, Queens. This denomination would become the Church of God (Huntsville, Alabama), when it relocated its headquarters after Homer's death in 1968. Homer founded the Theocratic Party and was its candidate for U.S. president in 1952 and 1964. He was a Bishop who planned to crown himself King of the World or "King of All Nations of Men" in Jerusalem on October 7, 1966.

In 1957, Grady R. Kent went out of the Church of God of Prophecy and formed the Church of God (Jerusalem Acres), which adopted its name in 1958.

When the Church elected a new general overseer in 1990 after the retirement of Milton Tomlinson, the stage was set for another division. A small body left in 1993 after a division in the Church led to another Church being formed by a group that felt that its congregation was led by God to appoint Robert J. Pruitt as their general overseer. That group is commonly known as The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee).

Recent history
"Exclusivity" has never been an official Church teaching. However, some ministers have subscribed to such teachings, and still hold them today, separate from the Church's official stance on the subject. The Church is working hard to correct the negative impression that this assumption has caused. In 2004, a joint cooperative world evangelism effort began between the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and the Church of God of Prophecy. This, and other efforts, are steps toward healing the effects of the long-time hurt and mistrust between the two organizations.

In 2006, at the Church's bi-annual General Assembly, General Overseer Fred Fisher retired from this leadership role and a new general overseer was appointed, Randy Howard. After a week-long discussion between members at this same General Assembly, the Church changed its long-standing interpretation of acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage. The Church agreed that people who had been divorced (for the cause of fornication) and were later remarried may become members of the Church of God of Prophecy. There was an overwhelming majority, made up of several thousand voting members, that voted for the change.

Bishop Howard announced his resignation on April 26, 2013, for a season of spiritual renewal and to focus on personal issues within his family. With Howard's resignation, the general presbyters of the Church were Bishops David Browder (Asia and Oceania), Sam Clements (North America), Clayton Endecott (Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Middle East), Benjamin Feliz (Central America, Mexico and Spanish-speaking Caribbean), Clayton Martin (Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean Isles), Stephen Masilela (Africa) and Gabriel Vidal (South America) served as a plurality of leadership until before the International Assembly convened in Orlando, Florida in late July 2014.

During the pre-Assembly meeting of International Presbytery, after days of prayer and discussion, it was discerned that Bishop Sam N. Clements, North America General Presbyter, was God's choice as the sixth general overseer of the Church of God of Prophecy. Bishop Clements began his term on September 1, 2014. The current Presiding Bishop is Tim Coalter, who was selected at the 2022 International Assembly.

Beliefs
From early on, the Church of God of Prophecy has claimed belief in principles based in the Bible, and continually researches scriptures through various committees. At the Eleventh Annual Assembly in 1915, the general overseer stated in his annual address, "We do not claim to have reached perfection; we are only searching for it." The following doctrinal insights reflect current findings through the Church of God of Prophecy International Assembly. The leadership acknowledges through various studies and writings that there are human limits of spiritual comprehension. Therefore, the organization continually studies for greater knowledge of God's design for the church and attempts to better align itself to the New Testament teachings of Christianity in order to continually grow and develop into the "fullness of the stature of Christ".

Henceforth, following each Assembly, the Biblical Doctrine and Polity Committee would be expected to make any further adjustments that would be required in light of this mandate to reflect Assembly decisions.

From its beginnings, the Church of God of Prophecy has asserted that its beliefs are based on "the whole Bible rightly divided". Water baptism by immersion, the Lord's Supper, and feet washing are held to be ordinances of the Church. Individuals must profess to be born again in order to become members, as well as maintain a consistent Christian witness. This group does not maintain that an individual must be a member of the Church to be a Christian.

The Church of God of Prophecy is firm in its commitment to orthodox Christian belief. It affirms that there is one God eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It believes in the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, sinless life, the physical miracles he performed, his atoning death upon the cross, his bodily resurrection, his ascension to the right hand of the Father, and his personal return in power and glory at his second coming. It professes that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential for the salvation of sinful mankind.

It teaches the belief that the sinner is brought to an awareness of the need for salvation through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. It teaches the belief that in sanctification by the blood of Christ, one is made holy. It affirms the present, active ministry of the Holy Spirit who guides the Church and by whose indwelling and empowerment that individuals are able to live godly lives and render effective service to God and others. It teaches the oneness and ultimate unity of believers for which our Lord prayed, and that this should be visibly displayed "that the world may know, see, and believe" God's glory, the coming of His Son, and the great love He has for His people (John 17:20-23). The organization is committed to the sanctity of the marriage bond and the importance of strong, loving Christian families.

The Church teaches (and many members believe) that it embraces all biblical doctrines as taught in the New Testament. The particular interpretations of the teachings (primarily from the New Testament) were originally introduced in a series of 29 sermons delivered on the Voice of Salvation radio program by M. A. Tomlinson. Several doctrinal beliefs of the Church became summarized by the 29 Prominent Teachings.

 * 1) Repentance
 * 2) Justification
 * 3) Regeneration
 * 4) Born Again
 * 5) Sanctification
 * 6) Holiness
 * 7) Water Baptism
 * 8) Baptism With the Holy Ghost
 * 9) Speaking in Tongues
 * 10) Full Restoration of the Gifts to the Church
 * 11) Signs Following Believers
 * 12) Fruit of the Spirit
 * 13) Divine Healing
 * 14) The Lord's Supper
 * 15) Washing the Saints' Feet
 * 16) Tithing and Giving
 * 17) Restitution Where Possible
 * 18) Pre-Millennial Second Coming of Jesus
 * 19) Resurrection
 * 20) Eternal Life for the Righteous
 * 21) Eternal Punishment for the Wicked
 * 22) Total abstinence from liquor or strong drink
 * 23) Against the use of tobacco, opium, morphine, etc.
 * 24) On Meats and Drinks
 * 25) On the Sabbath
 * 26) Against Wearing Gold for Ornament
 * 27) Lodge/Secret Society Membership (historically Against Belonging to Lodges )
 * 28) Wholesome Speech of the Believer  (historically against swearing)
 * 29) Against Divorce and Remarriage Evil

title: Church of God of Prophecy


text:
User talk:Jrincayc/Wikipedia Growth Paper

Looks like it is going to be a fascinating paper. I was just wondering how you were going to operationalize “good edits” and “good articles” in your data collection.

 * I wonder that myself. (That happens to be my major problem with the paper. Jrincayc 05:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Production of Wikipedia Content The first thing I thought of was to use standard production theory and treat “contributions” as a variable input. Contributions could be defined as some combination of “length of article” plus “number of edits” I guess. Some sort of Total Product curve, Average product curve, and Marginal product curve could be created to indicate the areas of increasing returns to contributions, decreasing returns to contribution, optimum level of contribution, etc. But I don’t know if that really helps you to define “improvement in an article”. I look forward to further installments on this very interesting topic.

 * As the number of edits/size of article increases, the onset of diminishing returns to contributions (per article) is complicated by positive network externalities at the systemic level. mydogategodshat 17:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, so somehow any usefull model is going to have to take into account both some approximation on effect to article and effect to encyclopedia. How to seperate the effects is going to be hard.  Jrincayc 15:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Model V3 Proposal
My next idea for a model (the second version was the one that was used in the handed in paper) is to work at the article level. For each article, try and predict the number of edits done to the article. Variables to try and predict from will be number of months since last edit, number of previous edits, number of previous authors, some author/edit interaction terms, various encyclopedia size statistics (total articles, total edits, articles with more than twenty authors ...). This will hopefully be able to tell the encyclopedia's effect on the article, and compare that to the articles effect on the article. This might be able to tease out some of the two seperate effects. Jrincayc 15:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Just one comment: Using a single regression equation with "number of edits" as the dependent variable may entail validity problems. In particular, can "number of edits" really act as a proxy for "quality of article"? Maybe, but there are many very POV articles that receive heavy editing. I suggest you regress the independent variables against "article size" as well as "number of edits", that is, do the procedure twice. Neither article size or # of edits is a really good proxy for article quality, but if you regress against each of them, you will be able to compare.

 * OK, another comment now that I think of it: I understand you used OLS. What do you think about using a stepwize regression? This might be useful given that some of your independent variables will have very high explanitory power (such as "number of previous edits"), and some will have very low. It would also be useful in checking your interaction terms.
 * mydogategodshat 06:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)