text:
User talk:Cyan/Unencyclopedic

Although it's certainly not either of the accepted definitions for "encyclopedic", your decision to follow Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty in choosing to use words how you want them to mean, rather than so as to achieve mutual comprehension with others, is admirable.

However, the problem with using that definition as a justification for deletion is that it's not an accepted justification for deletion. --The Cunctator 03:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm curious, what are the accepted definitions of "unencyclopedic"? How would you suggest I succinctly describe these concepts in a comprehensible fashion? Who doesn't accept these reasons? Who does? -- Cyan 04:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From a dictionary, which is an excellent source of finding accepted definitions of words:

encyclopedic
 * Of, relating to, or characteristic of an encyclopedia.
 * 1) Embracing many subjects; comprehensive: “an ignorance almost as encyclopedic as his erudition”

As far as I can see,the core of your definition is

 * Differing from my expectations for this project, especially for seriousness.

I don't exactly know what those expectations are--nor can anyone else. It's certainly to be expected that much of what falls under the accepted reasons for deletion, such as incomprehensible garbage ("asfgjn432-00wef0g4-0gfferign") or statements of opinion lacking any context ("I am the greatest! w00t!") fail those expectations.

But your definition is of limited utility to others, because we can't see your thoughts. When you say "This should not be included because it is unencyclopedic", essentially what you are saying is "It is my judgment that this should not be included." Wikipedia is designed such that binding decisions cannot be so justified except by Jimbo.

Furthermore, discussing particular entries by such a broad and all-encompassing proposition as the expectations for the project at large is also of limited utility. There is essentially no case in which you and everyone else would not be better served by simply stating the specific reason which motivates you to say that something is "unencyclopedic".

In short, for someone to accept your proposition "X is unencyclopedic", they must accept all of your goals for the project, since you give no explanation of which goals X is failing.

If someone asked you "I don't know what Wikipedia is. What is the goal of Wikipedia?" what would be your reply? --The Cunctator 04:59, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, one added note. You wrote: " I have observed that during conflicts it is quite common for one party, or more often both, to wrap themselves in the "Wikipedia flag", as if a personal attack on one user were somehow an attack on the entire community. A related maneuver is to declare that the future of Wikipedia is at stake. These "escalation tactics" are rather tired ploys. Insulting another user is... poor, but it isn't an general attack; only wholesale vandalism qualifies. And the project's future, in the broadest sense, isn't decided during the slinging of insults; it's decided on the policy pages."

Is that not entirely unlike what you're doing when you say something is "unencylopedic", that all of Wikipedia will suffer because this particular entry lacks what you consider "seriousness"?

--The Cunctator

I appreciate your attempt to educate me; however, I have already learned how to find definitions on the internet. I was more interested in how you would find such definitions. (Although I did not intend it this way, the question turned out to be pretty revealing of your communication style. For a person who keeps an extensive record of nasty things people have said about you, it seems to me you feel very free to express condescension, sarcasm, and contempt. Fortunately I have a pretty high threshold of tolerance.)

Now, my intended purpose for the page where I define my use of "unencyclopedic" was that I would wikilink the word when I use it elsewhere, so that people could see what I meant. The idea was that people could click the link for the more verbose usage. (I was a lot more active on VfD then.) So your assertion that it would insufficiently clear just to use the phrase on its own, while perfectly correct, does not actually criticize my intended use, which I failed to tell you.

This was my idea for getting around the problem of being succinct and to the point. (Hypertext is a wonderful thing.) The thrust of my second question was to see if you could help me find a better way...

I should also point out that the definition isn't so much about my goals for the project as it is about my extrapolation of a relatively new reader's expectations for an online encyclopedia.

Now, you've asserted baldly that the definition I gave is not an accepted justification for deletion. It's clear to me that you don't accept it; I wondered what you would say when you considered the opinions of others involved in the project. Unfortunately, since you didn't address those questions, I am still left to wonder.

The point of your postscript is well-taken: that's exactly what I would be doing if I labelled an entry to be "unencyclopedic". However, it would be my considered judgment, and not an escalation tactic during a heated exchange or an edit war.

-- Cyan 20:22, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for being snide; I thought you were being deliberately snarky (and from the comment "I was more interested in how you would find such definitions" that estimation seems to have merit) and rose to the bait. I certainly don't feel any contempt for you or any of the other participants in Wikipedia.

The statement "I should also point out that the definition isn't so much about my goals for the project as it is about my extrapolation of a relatively new reader's expectations for an online encyclopedia." clarifies a lot.

Wikipedia is qualitatively different from traditional encyclopedias. That was probably more obvious when there were only a few thousand entries and one person could pretty much get a handle on everything that was going on and comprehend the explosive growth.

I think that today we're doing a poor job of the acculturation process--of clearly and succinctly making the case of how Wikipedia is sui generis. One of the early mantras of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is Not the Encyclopedia Britannica". Everyone's natural inclination when coming to Wikipedia is to think What Would Britannica Do? But it's the wrong question to ask. The goal of Wikipedia is not to create another EB. The goal is to create something that hasn't been made before.

I strongly believe that the right approach to Wikipedia is to say (with only bit of exaggeration) "Wikipedia is the first true encyclopedia."

To respond to the final statement--I trust that when you label something "unencyclopedic" you're doing that honestly, but I hope that you'd be willing to consider that because you're making such a strong claim without any specific explanation, that people might unfortunately, but reasonably, consider that you're unfairly raising the stakes of the discourse? In other words, when people escalate the stakes, it's pretty hard to tell how much of it is a purely rhetorical tactic and how much of it is a straightforward expression of honest opinion.

The best option in such a situation is to avoid making those kinds of statements, even if it is what you want to say. Rather, limit yourself to a specific description for the individual case.

yours, The Cunctator 23:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, okay, it was simply a communication problem, one I recognized a while ago. I assure you, the statement "I was more interested in how you would find such definitions" was intended to convey only curiosity, without emotional overtones of irritation. I apologize for not communicating more clearly. (Also, when I say "I appreciate your attempt to educate me", I meant exactly that, no sarcasm. I mean, it was possible I'd just overlooked the idea, and then your advice would have been helpful.)

The bristly parenthetical comment on your communication style concerned not just your reply, but the very first paragraph you wrote. Unless you were serious... sometimes sarcasm can be hard to detect in raw text, and sometimes it's easy to see sarcasm where there was none intended. Hmm.

Wikipedia presently has a culture which seems to have moved far from the ideas you've described. There seems to be a dissonance: on one hand, every contributor recognizes that Wikipedia is one of a kind (or the first of its kind, anyway); on the other hand, it does call itself an encyclopedia, heretofore an object which, by necessity, covered only a limited subset of possible topics. So what topics should be covered? Some have proposed a minimal standard of "verifiability", and the more I stay around here, the more I have come to agree with that idea. And yet, I think it's fair to say that people have come to expect certain things from encyclopedias, and if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, something should be done in recognition of the expectations of the general readership.

You're right, the claim is overstrong: practically speaking, any one so-called unencyclopedic article could do only limited damage to Wikipedia's reputation, just as a single cigarette doesn't kill. And I recognize that some, such as Oliver P. and yourself, have seen the term "unencyclopedic" as insubstantial rhetoric rather than a reasoned argument. In fact, after the discussion I alluded to in my post on your talk page, I resolved to try to be more specific about the problems I perceived in articles. (Shortly thereafter, I lost interest in participating in VfD, for reasons that remain obscure to myself.) That was when I had the idea of creating this page to clarify what I meant when I wrote, "Article X is unencyclopedic." But I'm guessing you would find that insufficient...?

-- Cyan 01:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wish it was just a communication problem. Looking back, I just have to say I was being a big jerk to you. Reading it over, it's obvious that you were be earnest when you asked for the "accepted definitions". I think I was shooting for mildly caustic wit with the Lewis Carroll comparison.

I really should be doing a better job at winning people like you over to my vision of Wikipedia, because it's a positive, exciting, and open one. But I have much too strong a combative and instigative streak.

The concern about having people take Wikipedia seriously has been around from day one. My brief response is that as individuals we don't need to worry about that; just judge contributions on the merits of clarity and quality of information.

In an abstract sense it's a real concern, but in a practical sense the project is so large and dynamic that there will always be stuff to fix. By its very nature it can't be authoritative in the traditional sense. But what it can be is more likely to be useful in a statistical sense than anything else. That is to say, for any given inquiry, there will likely exist some better resource; but as the number of inquiries grows, the likelihood that Wikipedia will glean the greatest amount of useful information will rise.

Does that make any sense?

--The Cunctator 02:14, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I won't say you've won me over, but I have found your arguments convincing - in the abstract. I reserve the privilege of judging articles on my estimation of their effect on the reader with respect to Wikipedia's reputation, because I find the question can be more intricate than a broadly applied general principle can deal with. As a case in point, I note the wrangling over "santorum". The original article, while stubbish, was fine in terms of clarity and quality of information. The problem, in my view, was that in the manner that the information was being present would give a negative impression to some members of our prospective readership. (I am perfectly satisfied with the way the information is being presented now.) In fact, two contributors left Wikipedia, citing concerns over the "homosexual agenda" being pushed here, and I believe that was a reference to this specific article. While I, shall we say, politely disagree with the kind of mindset that produces the phrase "homosexual agenda", neither do I want to alienate such individuals when they are useful, dedicated contributors. In the end, I feel that "santorum" was a success story; nevertheless, the existence of the article did damage Wikipedia, long before you undeleted it. It is due to the possibility of articles like the original "santorum" that I reserve the privilege of judging articles on my estimation of their effect on the reader with respect to Wikipedia's reputation. -- Cyan 02:55, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(Yes, I'm watching this...) It is an interesting conundrum. I gotta admit I have to say the type of people who feel compelled to leave because they think Wikipedia is pushing the "homsexual agenda" won't be terribly missed.

And I don't say that because of their fear of gaydom. I say that because if they can neither work on issues that they consider are being improperly portrayed nor ignore them then Wikipedia is not the right place for them. Wikipedians should avoid false attachment (see discussion of WikipediAhimsa below).

There are any number of articles that I upset me because they are either a mess, grossly misleading, or a grossly misleading mess. The global warming pages are a good example. But I either ignore them or contribute to them, make an attempt to keep the changes if someone tries to immediately revert them--and work with that person if possible to figure out a compromise--and then move on.

But mostly I avoid issues I care about and just try to fix stuff that's a mess, mainly these days by breaking apart extremely long articles into constituent pieces.

I believe the healthy approach to Wikipedia is the practice of WikipediAhimsa. The principles of Jainist ahimsa are impressively applicable to Wikipedia; the goals of enlightenment are frighteningly similar to the concept of NPOV. From the essay:
 * The goal of Wikipedia may be recognized in the second vow of Jainism, satya, truth (or the abstension from falsehood).

 * More specifically, the goal of Wikipedia may be recognized in the dharma of uttama arjava, uttama satya, and uttama akinchana: supreme honesty, supreme truth, and supreme objectivity (or non-attachment, neutrality), and the tenet of anekantavada, that a thing may be considered from many points of view (note the similarities to the idea of NPOV).

--The Cunctator 05:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cyan/Unencyclopedic


text:
User:Alatin2000~enwiki

zh:user:Alatin2000

Alatin2000, No.34016 User in the Wikipedia. It's amazing encyclopedia for free and resourceful in Wiki. I like the organized structure of wikipedia,which involved knowledge everyone contributed.

Contact me to Talk to Alatin2000!

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

title: User:Alatin2000~enwiki


text:
List of international sports federations

This is a list of international sports federations, each of which serves as a non-governmental governing body for a given sport and administers its sport at a world level, most often crafting rules, promoting the sport to prospective spectators and fans, developing prospective players, and organizing world or continental championships. Some international sports federations, such as World Aquatics and the International Skating Union, may oversee multiple activities referred to in common parlance as separate sports: World Aquatics, for example governs swimming, diving, synchronised swimming, and water polo as separate "disciplines" within the single "sport" of Aquatics.

International sports federations form an integral part of the Olympic and Paralympic movements. Each Olympic sport is represented by its respective international sports federation, which in turn helps administer the events in its respective sport during the Games. For a sport to become an Olympic sport, its international sports federation must be recognized by the International Olympic Committee.

Likewise, an international sports federation must be recognized by the International Paralympic Committee for its sport to become a paralympic sport, though in the latter case, several Paralympic Sports are governed by a dedicated committee of the International Paralympic Committee itself, under the World Para branding, for example track and field athletics for disabled athletes is governed by the IPC itself, under the name "World Para Athletics". Other Paralympic sports are governed within the structure of the able-bodied equivalent: for example, the UCI governs both able-bodied and paralympic cycling.

Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF)
In May 2023 the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) reached a number of 31 full member international federations and 2 associate member international federations.

However, on 22 June 2023, the IOC decided to withdraw recognition of the International Boxing Association (IBA), in accordance with Rule 3.7 of the Olympic Charter (OC), although boxing will continue to be an olympic sport for the 2028 Summer Olympics. This was the first-ever International Federation to be removed from the Olympic Movement by the IOC.

The following are the 30 members of the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) which are recognised by the International Olympic Committee:

^ Denotes membership also to The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA).

ASOIF associate members
The following are the 2 current Associate Member International Federations of ASOIF.

Association of International Olympic Winter Sports Federations (AIOWF)
The following are recognized by the Association of International Olympic Winter Sports Federations (AIOWF):

The following is an Associate Member International Federation of AIOWF (representing a sport which is on the Olympic Programme of Milan-Cortina 2026 ).

Association of the IOC Recognised International Sports Federations (ARISF)
As of April 2024 the Association of the IOC Recognised International Sports Federations (ARISF) has 39 member federations. The following are recognised by the Association of the IOC Recognised International Sports Federations (ARISF):

^ Denotes membership also to The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA).

Federations recognized by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC)
There are 17 international federations recognized by the IPC, while the IPC itself serves as the international federation for six sports. IPC recognises also 4 International Organisations of Sports for the Disabled. And there are another 14 federations which are recognised by the IPC but are not eligible to be IPC members.

Sports directly governed by IPC
On 30 November 2016, the IPC adopted the "World Para" brand for all 10 of the sports that it directly governed at that time. At the 2021 IPC General Assembly, IPC members provided a strong mandate for the IPC to cease acting as the international federation for 10 sports by the end of 2026. Para alpine skiing, Para cross-country, Para snowboard and Para biathlon have been already transferred to FIS and IBU. Currently IPC acts as the international federation for six sports:

International Federations
International Federations are independent sport federations recognised by the IPC as the sole representative of a  Paralympic Sport.

The IPC currently recognises 17 International Federations representing 19 parasports:

International Organisations of Sports for the Disabled

 * International Organisations of Sports for the Disabled (IOSDs) are independent organisations recognised by the IPC as the sole representatives of a specific impairment group.
 * The IPC currently recognises 3 IOSDs:

Following two years of talks, and relevant decisions by both their General Assemblies, on 1 January 2023, the Cerebral Palsy International Sports and Recreation Association (CPISRA) and the International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS) were merged to form World Abilitysport.

IPC-recognised International sports federations non-eligible for membership
The IPC recognises a number of international sports federations which are not eligible to be IPC members, but contribute to the development of sport opportunities for athletes associated with the Paralympic Movement and have organisational goals that are compatible with the Vision and Mission of the IPC.

The following 14 are IPC-recognised international sport federations:

SportAccord
Federations whose sports are either included in the Olympic Games (ASOIF, AIOWF) or recognized by the IOC (ARISF) are also stakeholders of SportAccord, after the dissolution of the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF) in 2023. Other stakeholders of SportAccord (non-IOC recognized) compose the Alliance of Independent Recognized Members of Sport (AIMS).

Alliance of Independent Recognized Members of Sport (AIMS)
^ Denotes membership also to The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA).

Associate members of GAISF
Before the dissolution of GAISF in 2023, other than full members (composing ASOIF, AIOWF, ARISF and AIMS), there have been Associate members of GAISF. After the dissolution of GAISF, the proposal has been for its former associate members to be granted observer status at the SportAccord General Assembly.

Observers of GAISF
Before the dissolution of GAISF in 2023, the GAISF Observer Status could be requested by the Applicants to GAISF Membership interested to obtain support and guidance in their path to fulfil the GAISF Membership Criteria.

^ Denotes membership to The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA).

Other international sports federations
The international federations listed below are currently not related with GAISF / SportAccord.

(Non-GAISF) TAFISA members
The international federations listed below, for the time being, are not related with GAISF / SportAccord, but are among the international members of The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA).

Non-associated federations
The international federations listed below are currently not related with either with GAISF / SportAccord or with The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA).

Miscellaneous

 * International Game Fish Association (IGFA)
 * International Gay Bowling Organization (IGBO)
 * International Federation of Corporate Football (FIFCO)

Sports governed by national associations
Certain sports are currently not governed by international federations, but rather by national associations.


text:
Gracie Fields

Dame Gracie Fields (born Grace Stansfield; 9 January 1898 – 27 September 1979) was a British actress, singer and comedian. A star of cinema and music hall, she was one of the top ten film stars in Britain during the 1930s and was considered the highest paid film star in the world in 1937. Fields was known affectionately as Our Gracie and the Lancashire Lass and for never losing her strong, native Lancashire accent. She was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) and an Officer of the Venerable Order of St John (OStJ) in 1938, and a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in 1979.

Early life
Fields was born Grace Stansfield, a daughter of Frederick Stansfield (1874–1956) and his wife Sarah Jane 'Jenny' Stansfield née Bamford (1879–1953), over a fish and chip shop owned by her grandmother, Sarah Bamford, in Molesworth Street, Rochdale, Lancashire. Her great-grandfather, William Stansfield (b.1805), of Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire, was a descendant of the Stansfield family of Stansfield, Yorkshire.

Fields made her first stage appearance as a child, in 1905, joining children's repertory theatre groups such as "Haley's Garden of Girls" and Clara Coverdale's "Nine Dainty Dots". Her two sisters, Edith Fields and Betty Fields, and brother, Tommy Fields, all went on to appear on stage, but Gracie was the most successful. Her professional debut in variety took place at the Rochdale Hippodrome theatre in 1910, and she soon gave up her job in the local cotton mill, where she was a half-timer, spending half a week in the mill and the other half at school. Early newspaper clippings show her appearing locally in venues such as Todmorden (December 1913), Milnrow (February 1914), and Burnley (July 1914) with an appearance at The Palace in Blackpool in April 1914. The Burnley newspaper described her as “The Girl with the Double Voice”.

Fields met the comedian and impresario Archie Pitt and they began working together in Percy Hall's touring show Yes, I Think So. Pitt gave Fields champagne on her 18th birthday, and wrote in an autograph book to her that he would make her a star. Pitt began to manage her career and they began a relationship; they married in 1923 at Clapham Register Office. Their first revue together, written by Pitt, was called It's A Bargain! in 1915, and the two continued to tour Britain together until 1931.

Throughout 1918-1924, they appeared in the revue Mr Tower of London, which took Fields to the West End for the first time. Other shows following with Pitt in subsequent years, were The Show's The Thing and Walk This Way.

Pitt was the brother of Bert Aza, founder of the Aza Agency, which was responsible for many entertainers of the day including the actor and comedian Stanley Holloway, who was introduced to Aza by Fields, and Betty Driver who was discovered by Archie was a replacement cast member in 'Mr Tower of London'. Fields and Holloway first worked together on her film Sing As We Go in 1934 and the two remained close friends for the rest of their lives.

Fame
Fields came to major public notice in Mr Tower of London, a show staged in London's West End. Her career accelerated from this point, with dramatic performances and the beginning of a recording career on His Master's Voice (HMV). She was one of the most successful recording artists at the label, her first record, My Blue Heaven sold 500,000 copies in 1928. In 1933, HMV produced the four millionth Fields record, which was pressed by the singer herself on camera and celebrated with a special 'Lancashire Lunch' at the Trocadero.

At one point, Fields was playing three shows a night in the West End. She appeared in the production SOS with Gerald Du Maurier, a play staged at the St James's Theatre.

Fields' most famous song, "Sally", which became her theme, was written for her first film, Sally in Our Alley (1931), a major box office hit. She went on to make a number of films, initially in Britain and later in the United States (when she was paid a record fee of £200,000 for four films). Regardless, she never enjoyed performing without a live audience, and found the process of film-making boring. She tried to opt out of filming, before director Monty Banks persuaded her otherwise, landing her a lucrative Hollywood deal. Fields demanded that the four pictures be filmed in Britain and not Hollywood.

The final few lines of the song "Sally", which Fields sang at every performance from 1931 onwards, were written by her husband's mistress, Annie Lipman. Fields claimed in later life that she wanted to "Drown blasted Sally with Walter with the aspidistra on top!", a reference to two other of her well-known songs, "Walter, Walter", and "The Biggest Aspidistra In The World".

The famous opera star Luisa Tetrazzini heard her singing an aria and asked her to sing in grand opera. Fields decided to stay "where I knew I belonged."

Charity work
In the 1930s, her popularity was at its peak, and she was given many honours: she became an Officer of the Venerable Order of St John (OStJ) for her charity work, and a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for her services to entertainment in the 1938 New Year Honours, and was granted the Freedom of the Borough of Rochdale in 1937.

She donated her house in The Bishops Avenue, north London – which she had not much cared for, and shared with her husband Pitt and his mistress – to an orphanage after the marriage broke down. In 1939, she became seriously ill with cervical cancer. The public sent over 250,000 goodwill messages and she retired to her villa on Capri. After she recovered, she recorded a special 78rpm record simply called Gracie's Thanks, in which she thanks the public for the many cards and letters she received while in hospital.

Fields also helped Rochdale Association Football Club in the 1930s, when they were struggling to pay fees and buy sports equipment.

In 1933, she set up the Gracie Fields Children's Home and Orphanage at Peacehaven, Sussex, for children of those in the theatre profession who could not look after their children. She kept this until 1967, when the home was no longer needed. This was near her own home in Peacehaven, and Fields often visited, with the children all calling her 'Aunty Grace'.

World War II
In 1939, Fields suffered a breakdown and went to Capri to recuperate. World War II was declared while she was recovering in Capri, and Fields – still very ill after her cancer surgery – threw herself into her work and signed up for the Entertainments National Service Association (ENSA) headed by her old film producer, Basil Dean. Fields travelled to France to entertain the troops in the midst of air-raids, performing on the backs of open lorries and in war-torn areas. During the war, she also paid for all servicemen and women to travel free on public transport within the boundaries of Rochdale. Fields travelled to Chester with serviceman Harrison after he had watched her perform in France. She stayed with his family of 9 as a guest in their small 2 up 2 down house.

Following her divorce from Archie Pitt, she married Italian-born film director Monty Banks in March 1940. However, because Banks remained an Italian citizen and would have been interned in the United Kingdom after Italy declared war in 1940, she went with him to North America, possibly at the suggestion of Winston Churchill who told her to "Make American Dollars, not British Pounds", which she did, in aid of the Navy League and the Spitfire Fund. She and Banks moved to their home in Santa Monica, California. Fields occasionally returned to Britain, performing in factories and army camps around the country. After their initial argument, Parliament offered her an official apology.

Although she continued to spend much of her time entertaining troops and otherwise supporting the war effort outside Britain, this led to a decline in her popularity at home. She performed many times for Allied troops, travelling as far as New Guinea, where she received an enthusiastic response from Australian personnel. In late 1945, she toured the South Pacific Islands.

Post-war career
After the war, Fields continued her career less actively. She began performing in Britain again in 1948, headlining the London Palladium over Ella Fitzgerald who was also on the bill. The BBC gave her her own weekly radio show in 1947, dubbed Our Gracie's Working Party, in which 12 towns were visited by Fields. A live show of music and entertainment, it was compered by Fields, who also performed, together with local talents. The tour commenced in Gracie's hometown of Rochdale. Like many BBC shows at the time, this show transferred to Radio Luxembourg in 1950, where it was sponsored by Wisk soap powder. Billy Ternent and his Orchestra accompanied her.

In 1951, Fields took part in the cabaret which closed the Festival of Britain celebrations. She proved popular once more, though never regaining the status she enjoyed in the 1930s. She continued recording, but made no more films, moving more towards light classical music as popular tastes changed, often adopting a religious theme. She continued into the new medium of LP records, and recorded new versions of her old favourite songs, as well as contemporary tracks, to 'liven things up a bit'.

Her husband, Monty Banks, died on 8 January 1950 of a heart attack, while travelling on the Orient Express. On 18 February 1952 in Capri, Fields married Boris Alperovici (d.1983), a Romanian radio repairman. She claimed that he was the love of her life, and that she couldn't wait to propose to him. She proposed on Christmas Day in front of friends and family. They married at the Church of St Stefano on Capri in a quiet ceremony, before honeymooning in Rome.

She lived on her beloved Isle of Capri for the remainder of her life, at her home La Canzone Del Mare (The Song of the Sea), where her home overlooked the swimming and restaurant complex. It was favoured by many Hollywood stars during the 1950s, with regular guests including Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Greta Garbo and Noël Coward.

Later years
Fields began to work less, but still toured the UK under the management of Harold Fielding (manager of top artists of the day such as Tommy Steele and Max Bygraves). Her UK tours proved popular, and in the mid-1960s she gave farewell tours in Australia, Canada and America; the last performance was recorded and released years later.

In 1956, Fields was the first actress to portray Miss Marple on screen, in a US Television (Goodyear Playhouse) production of Agatha Christie's A Murder is Announced. The production featured Jessica Tandy and Roger Moore, and predates the Margaret Rutherford films by five years. She also starred in Television productions of A Tale of Two Cities (DuPont Show of the Month, 1958), The Old Lady Shows Her Medals (United States Steel Hour)– for which she won a Sylvania Award (1956) and received an EMMY Award nomination for Best Single Performance by an Actress (1957) – and Mrs 'Arris Goes to Paris (Studio One), which was remade years later with Angela Lansbury as Mrs Harris, a charwoman in search of a fur coat (or a Christian Dior gown in Lansbury's case).

In 1957, her single "Around the World" peaked at No.8 in the UK Singles Chart, with her recording of "Little Donkey" reaching No.20 in November 1959. The sheet music for the song was the UK's best-seller for seven weeks.

She was the subject of This Is Your Life on 20 March 1960, when she was surprised by Eamonn Andrews at the BBC Television Theatre.

Fields regularly performed in TV appearances, being the first entertainer to perform on Val Parnell's Sunday Night at the London Palladium. Fields had two Christmas TV specials in 1960 and 1961, singing her old favourites and new songs in front of a studio audience. 1971 saw A Gift For Gracie, another TV special presented by Fields and Bruce Forsyth. This followed on from her popularity on Stars on Sunday, a religious programme on Britain's ITV, in which well-known performers sang hymns or read extracts from the Bible. Fields was the most requested artist on the show.

In 1968, Fields headlined a two-week Christmas stint at the West Riding of Yorkshire's prestigious Batley Variety Club. "I was born over a fish and chip shop – I never thought I'd be singing in one!" claimed Fields during the performance recorded by the BBC.

Fields recorded an album Stars on Sunday which was released on York BYK 707 in 1971. It included the songs, "Three Green Bonnets", "Forgive Me Lord", "Round the Bend of the Road", "Ave Maria" and "The Lord's Prayer".

In 1975, her album The Golden Years reached No. 48 in the UK Albums Chart.

In 1978, she opened the Gracie Fields Theatre, near Oulder Hill Leadership Academy in her native Rochdale, performing a concert there recorded by the BBC to open the show. Fields appeared in ten Royal Variety Performances from 1928 onwards, her last being in 1978 at the age of 80, when she appeared as a surprise guest in the finale and sang her theme song, "Sally".

Her final TV appearance came in January 1979 when she appeared in a special octogenarian edition of The Merv Griffin Show in America, in which she sang the song she popularised in America, "The Biggest Aspidistra in the World". Fields was notified by her confidant John Taylor, while she was in America, that she had received the Queen's invitation to become a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (in the 1979 New Years Honours List), to which she replied: "Yes I'll accept, yes I can kneel – but I might need help getting back up, and yes I'll attend –  as long as they don't call Boris 'Buttons'." Seven months before her death in 1979, she was invested as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) by Queen Elizabeth II.

Death
Fields's health declined in July 1979, when she contracted pneumonia after performing an open-air concert on the Royal Yacht which was docked in Capri's harbour. After a spell in hospital, she seemed to be recovering, but died on 27 September 1979. The press reported she died holding her husband's hand, but in reality he was at their Anacapri home at the time, while Gracie was home with the housekeeper, Irena. She is buried in Capri's Protestant Cemetery, in a white marble tomb. Her coffin was carried by staff from her restaurant.

Honours and popular culture
Honours

Fields was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the 1938 New Years Honours. In February 1979, she was invested as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire seven months before her death at her home on Capri, aged 81.

Popular culture

Fields was the mystery guest on the 1 May 1955 edition of What's My Line? After Bennett Cerf asked about one of her songs, Dorothy Kilgallen correctly guessed it was her. Fields was granted the Freedom of Rochdale.

In early 1985, an episode of the BBC television series Halls of Fame, which presented a nostalgic look at various famous regional theatres, included a medley of Fields' songs at the Palace Theatre, Manchester, sung by Marti Webb. At the 1985 Royal Variety Performance, Su Pollard performed "Sally" in tribute to her. The following year's Performance also featured a section with a medley of Fields' songs, again sung by Webb.

Following her death, she was referenced in the 1987 film Wish You Were Here, the 1996 film Intimate Relations, and the 2006 film The History Boys.

Gracie! was a 2009 biopic TV film on her life, with Jane Horrocks playing Fields and Tom Hollander her husband Monty Banks. It covers her career before the Second World War and the decline in her popularity during the war.

Other Honours

Fields had two ships named after her. On 8 April 1936, Fields herself launched the PS Gracie Fields which was the last paddle steamer built for Red Funnel as a ferry and excursion steamer. She ran on the Southampton-Cowes route until the outbreak of World War II, when she was requisitioned and served as a minesweeper as HMS Gracie Fields. She was seriously damaged by aircraft bomb during the evacuation of Dunkirk and sank in 1940. In 1936, a passenger ship was also named the Gracie Fields.

Three oil paintings of Fields are held by Touchstones Gallery, Rochdale: in 1938, a painting by Herbert James Gunn, in 1978, a painting by William Allan Vause, and in 1998, a painting by Keith John Turley.

The local theatre in Rochdale, the Gracie Fields Theatre, was opened by, and named after, her in 1978.

On 3 October 2009, the final train to run on the Oldham Loop before it closed to be converted to a Manchester Metrolink tramway, a Class 156, was named in her honour.

In September 2016, a statue of Fields, created by Sean Hedges-Quinn, was unveiled outside Rochdale Town Hall, which was the first statue of a woman to be erected for over a century in Lancashire.

Notable songs

 * "We're All living at the Cloisters"
 * "You Didn't Want Me When You Had Me"
 * "Sally"
 * "The Kerry Dance"
 * "Sing As We Go"
 * "Thing-Ummy-Bob (That's Gonna Win The War)"
 * "The Biggest Aspidistra in the World"
 * "Three Green Bonnets"
 * "I Took my Harp to a Party"
 * "The Trek Song"
 * "Pedro the Fisherman"
 * "Only a Glass of Champagne"
 * "Speak Softly, Love"
 * "Angels Guard Thee"
 * "Around the World"
 * "Nuns' Chorus"
 * "Little Donkey"
 * "Now Is the Hour"
 * "The Carefree Heart"
 * "The Isle of Capri"
 * "The Woodpecker Song"
 * "Walter, Walter (Lead Me to the Altar)"
 * "Young at Heart"
 * "Christopher Robin is Saying His Prayers"
 * "Far Away"
 * "If I Had a Talking Picture of You"
 * "Home"
 * "Wish Me Luck as You Wave Me Goodbye"
 * "The Holy City"
 * "When I Grow Too Old to Dream"
 * "If I Knew You Were Comin' I'd've Baked a Cake"
 * "The Twelfth of Never"
 * "Those Were The Days" (performed live at The Batley Variety Club in 1968)
 * "Singin' in the Bathtub"
 * "Stop and Shop at the Co-op Shop"
 * "I Never Cried So Much in All My Life"
 * "Take Me To Your Heart" (alternative English lyrics to "La Vie en rose")

Box office ranking
For a number of years, British film exhibitors voted her among the top ten stars in Britain at the box office via an annual poll in the Motion Picture Herald.
 * 1936 – 1st (3rd most popular star over all)
 * 1937 – 1st (3rd overall)
 * 1938 – 2nd
 * 1939 - 2nd
 * 1940 - 3rd
 * 1941 - 8th

title: Gracie Fields


text:
Talk:Meet the Feebles

Untitled
I know some people are likely to object to 64.231.99.65's the inclusion of the sodomy song lyrics, that wikipedia is not a collection of movie lyrics.

I take a different view. The production values on the move are so low that it is quite difficult to understand what Sebastian is actually saying, even after watching it many times. Plus, it's the funniest moment of the movie. So I am going to preemptively vote to keep it (should someone object) --Raul654 04:15, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Robert's (Wobert's) so-called speech disorder
The pronunciation of "r" as "w" is a fairly common affect for English-speaking people of the "British Empire", even those of the aristocracy, and is not considered to be a speech impediment like it is in the United States.

The Love Triangle
"The flatulence from the cake causes Heidi to lay waste to the set during the rehearsal of a feature number. Sebastian lambastes her for overeating and thus destroying the set." When viewed carefully, it can be plainly seen that Heidi's weight breaks the swing and she falls into a pond. Her impact splashes water on an offstage electric fan, causing it to short-circuit and blow with such velocity that it trashes the set.

Dennis
I'm pretty sure he's an aardvark, not an anteater, but I'm only using wikipedia's images and the movie as a reference -- I have no inside information. He has aardvark-ish ears, snout, and claws.

Myxomatosis
I'm sure Harry has it because if you listen carefully to his joy after the Dr. calls him and tells him he misdiagnosed his sickness, you can hear him say he doesn't have myxomatosis.

Fair use rationale for Image:Meet the Feebles.jpg
Image:Meet the Feebles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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.BetacommandBot 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Subplots
I added detailed subplots for the movie. I initially tried to do this as a more detailed plot description, but the story is way too convoluted and chronologically interwoven to make any sense of it straight through. Feel free to modify, as always.. :) SkepticVK (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Someone recently re-wrote the section 'The Big One'. I certainly don't object to someone rewriting an entire paragraph, but it should at least improve the information, and not make the grammar, readability, and overall flow worse.  I reverted the section, but I did add information on the Fly's demise, which was legitimate.

 * SkepticVK (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I edited/reverted more of the re-writes. I don't like removing someone's edits wholesale, so here are the criteria I used for my changes:

 * Does the new edit have useful information not in the original
 * Is the overall description a summary, and not a detailed item-by-item description of the subplot
 * Is the grammar up to Wikipedia standards
 * Does the language use too much vernacular
 * Is the wording re-written just for the sake of rewriting it

 * I tried to identify new information that added to the summary's clarity and included it. However, there's a fine line between a good summary and too much detail.

 * SkepticVK (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Masked Masochist - Species
Looking at the movie, the Masked Masochist isn't a cockroach, he looks a lot more like a weta than a roach, but isn't completely anatomically correct as a weta either, on the other-hand he's playing the part of a sadist not a masochist so I don't think Jackson was terribly worried about being right in every detail. I've changed the description in the article. Kiore (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Meshuggah
Please forgive my ignorance, but could someone please inform me as to why "Meshuggah" is listed as a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.64.2.77 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meet the Feebles


text:
Talk:Zionist Occupied Government

Should we make Zionist Occupation Government into a redirect page for this article? Saul Taylor

I think Zionist Occupied Government is the more common form, so yes. Also my article is much better :) Adam 05:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the term ZOG predates the mid-90's estimate of the article. A search on Google Groups brought up this posting from 1987:
 * http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8702041425.AA28837%40nrl-css.ARPA&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

The first reference I've been able to find to Zionist Occupation Government is a South Florida Sun-Sentinel story of Feb 16, 1985 about the activities of a US neo-Nazi group. Zionist Occupied Government is mentioned in a Chicago Tribune story of Dec 31, 1985 concerning the same group. I'm certain that both terms date back much earlier, but my database doesn't go back much before 1985. -- ChrisO 18:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I've pushed it back to 1984 now. The term does seem to originate with the Aryan Nations. -- ChrisO 15:39, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"ZOG" is not a generically white supremicist idea, in fact I don't think it has much to do with "white" as a category at all. It is a specifically anti-Semitic idea. I am opposed to any wording which euphemises or disguises this. Adam 09:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with your basic sentiment, but you don't call references to Christian influence in the government anti-White, do you? Therefore "ZOG," or the belief that Zionists have more power than they should, doesn't make you anti-semitic. If it is anti-(ethnicity) (racist in other words) to point out an injustice or inequality at the hands of another ethnicity, where are we? I also have the feeling that only Jews are given this preferential bias treatment. Why? - User (I don't know how to insert time and such yet)

 * I find this discussion the very form of ridiculous. The term ZOG does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a context of centuries of anti-Semitism which has taken this exact form. Furthermore, although it is concievable that one could criticize the Jewish influence in America in a non-anti-Semitic manner, many things are possible. Fewer things actually happen. The people who use this term are anti-Semites. That in and of itself is enough to say that it is so in the article. Snowspinner 17:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * And why do you think that the people using this term are anti-semites? BECAUSE YOU ARE TOLD BY OTHERS THAT IT IS. Use case-by-case reasoning instead of flat, all-accompassing stereotypes. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, so let the opening sentence explain what the term means instead of throwing dirt at all people who use it. The rest of the article discusses it's history any way. Remember: ENCYCLOPEDIA. - User

 * I am uncertain, having googled the term, on top of having done a good amount of research into anti-Semitic groups, how to interpret the writing that uses this term as anything other than anti-Semitic. If you want to provide a usage of the term that is not anti-Semitic, be my guest. Until then, I cannot help but note that you are rapidly approaching being abusive. Yes, this is an encyclopedia. Which means it should document the term and its usage. Plenty of other terms report in their first sentence or paragraph what groups and contexts the term is used in. If you want this paragraph to read differently, you need to provide documented evidence of a non-anti-Semitic use. Snowspinner 17:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Very good. Then what do you think about having the opening sentence of, say, "Old boys" read; Old boys is a term used by groups of anti-Whites to express their belief that United States government is controlled by "Old conservative men," that is to say, by "Whites." Can you see the problem better in this context? What is your problem with true and objective information in an encyclopedia, Snowspinner? Why must it contain slant and biased stereotypes (be they politically correct or not), according to you? - User

 * My objection would be that this description of "Old boys" would be inaccurate, whereas the current definition of Zionist Occupied Government is not. Snowspinner 17:59, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Exactly my point... You are biased beyond belief, and you let this encyclopedia suffer because of it. Let us wait for more participants for this neutrality discussion, we two alone obviously can't get anywhere, not with you being convinced that bias for some ethnicities while not for others is correct. - User

 * That's flatly untrue. The term is used by anti-Semites. This is clear. I have asked for (And not recieved) any indication of a non-anti Semitic usage of the term. If you really want a non anti-white usage of the term "Old boys", I can waste my time finding you one, but otherwise, you're making a blanket statement not supported by any verifiable truth. This ahs nothing to do with ethnicities, and everything to do with how the term is actually used in the world. Snowspinner 20:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC) (Post was actually earlier than that, but I just noticed I didn't sign it)

I'm unaware of anyone who isn't an anti-Semite using the term ZOG. The term originated with anti-Semites and is propogated by anti-Semites hence it is an anti-Semitic term despite attempts at a whitewash.AndyL 20:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone understand what Snowspinner is talking about? I certainly don't. Adam 00:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm saying that the term is only ever used by anti-Semites. And Wikipedia should reflect that. How is this difficult? Snowspinner 00:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

That's what the article says already. Adam 00:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's not what the article would say after the troll I was arguing with up above edited it. There was a revert war, accompanied by posts on the talk page. Check the page history, it'll get you up to speed. Snowspinner 00:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I see. So long as you are agreeing with me, I don't care whether I know what you are talking about or not :) Adam 01:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Troll? You are the one with ulterior motives here, racist ulterior motives at that, and it is plain as day. You do not know that everybody who use or will use the term ZOG are anti-semite, you only assume so because they use the term ZOG in the first place. Therefore the opening sentence should be objective and explain what the term is instead of making blanket statements about the character of people who use it. Apparently basic objectivity, integrity and justice are too grand concepts for you. - User

It seems to me to be a fact that the term ZOG is anti-Semitic as it is an application of Jewish conspiracy theories. Could you please explain how it isn't anti-Semitic. Assertion is not a fact so please give me an argument rather than simply say it isn't because it isn't. AndyL 01:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Then by the same measure, the belief that Odinists (predominantly White, just as Zionism is predominantly Jewish) have more than their share of power would automatically be anti-(ethnicity) too. As to your assertion that I only have an assertion without arguments; I have given several different arguments for my position, as is documented on this page, while you, collectively, have offered none other than manifestations of stereotypes, racism-inspired bias, and prejudice. - User

 * What arguments have you given? I've asked very explicityl several times for a non-anti-Semitic usage. You have yet to offer one. You've given a vague general case where it could concievably not be anti-Semitic, but you've offered no evidence that this actually happens. You have also crossed the line into personal attacks, having accused me of being a racist. I advise you to back down and find some evidence to support your claims. Snowspinner 01:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have given several arguments, and one of them is staring at you from the text right above yours. Your denial of the patently obvious truth is a common theme of trolling, and I think that you are hoping to discourage me from participating in this debate any further. You see, analogies can also be arguments, you know. I will repeat it;
 * Then by the same measure, the belief that Odinists (predominantly White, just as Zionism is predominantly Jewish) have more than their share of power would automatically be anti-(ethnicity) too.
 * You also state that I have crossed the line into personal attacks, because I accuse your actions of being racist. I call that hypocrisy, because if memory serves me right, and the Wikipedia logs are correct, you told another user that I am a troll. Quote: "the troll I was arguing with up above"
 * - User

 * Random hypotheticals using made up words are not examples or evidence. As for you being a troll... you've hardly given me reason to think otherwise. You're demanding a change based on no evidence beyond wild hypotheticals. What do you want me to think? That you have reasoned arguments based on actual usage of the word? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a place for speculation about how a word might be used. Although it might be theoretically possible for ZOG to be used outside of an anti-Semitic context, it is not used in this way. If it is, please show evidence of this. Otherwise, you are raising a hypothetical - not a real point. Snowspinner 03:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user, a vague inaccurate allegory is not an argument. Please provide a concrete argument for why the term ZOG is not anti-Semitic. AndyL 03:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

An artificial example: "I love semites but the US's darn Zionist Occupied Government really steams me." I have seen the classes of anti-Zionist and anti-Semite be attributed distinctly from one another. I know of people who are not fond of Zionism and yet have nothing against Semitic people in themselves. Is the term really only used by anti-Semites, or is it also used by anti-Zionists? One compromise would have the opening sentence read ". . . is an expression predominantly used by groups. . ." noting the inserted 'predominantly'. The phrase has potential to be used by non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, and I suspect it also probable, especially since the term is now parodied and applied to other bodies like the Amish. That illustrates its existence is not known only to anti-Semites, and makes it improbable that an anti-Zionist could not have applied it without anti-Semitic feelings. Less probable and unhistorically, it has the potential to be used by non-anti-Zionists as simply denoting the idea that Zionists have occupied the government -- but the Wikipedia does not traffic in such unrealised potential :) --AquaRichy 04:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but AquaRichy is just wrong about this. The term ZOG is used only by anti-Semite groups, not by anti-Zionists. These groups use "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew" and make no secret of this. There are of course anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semites, but they do not indulge in paranoid fantasies that the Zionists / Jews rule the US or the world. I will oppose any change to the wording. Adam 05:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Most people would agree on this: It is generously well-documented that every group that uses the phrase "Zionist Occupied Government" is both racist and anti-Semitic. The only people who would ever claim otherwise are themselves anti-semites; they are clearly trying to legitimize their views through wordplay. The people who are disagreeing with Adam have an agenda to to rewrite an encyclopedia to promote their worldview. JeMa 17:41, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * I now concur with Adam, and would not have the wording changed. For clarity, I am not an anti-Semite nor suspect Jews of occupying the US government, but modern Zionism does bother me.  --AquaRichy 20:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aryan Nations
The aryan nations deserve mention here. if you would like to discuss the usage of the term by others, feel free. But please don't censor the attributed opinions of other important sources of usage of this term. 13:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The text that I removed, and my reasons for doing so:

1. Aryan Nations describes Jews as "the natural enemy of our Aryan (White) Race. This is attested by scripture and all secular history. The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to destroy our Aryan culture and the purity of our Race."

 * I fail to see how lessons on the theories of the Aryan Nations group are relevant to the concept of Zionist Occupied Government. The opinion of one group on what 'Jews' are is not related to the theory of ZOG by any stretch of the imagination. Mention the Aryan Nations group as the origin of the term, fine. But this term now extends far beyond one very distinct group and to imply that it does not is misleading.

2. Supporters of the ZOG premise often contrast the "tyrannical" actions of the Zionist Occupied Government with the supposed freedom-loving Christian purity of white Americans, as in the example of Pastor Carl Franklin of the Aryan Nations. He was quoted in an April 21, 1993 article in the British newspaper The Guardian as saying that "[y]ou have the tyranny of a Zionist occupation government coming foursquare against a Christian, American white family."

 * This is a generalisation of what 'supporters of the ZOG premise' believe. Religion is not relative to this political theory.

3. Citing the Book of Revelation, Aryan Nations envisions a "battle" being fought "between the children of darkness (today known as Jews) and the children of light...the Aryan Race, the true Israel of the Bible." There will "soon" be a "day of reckoning," in which "the usurper will be thrown out by the terrible might of Yahweh's people, as they return to their roots and their special destiny." In this struggle between the Jews and "the children of light," Aryan Nations says that the Jews have a surrogate: the Zionist Occupied Government of the United States.

 * Again, this is entirely irrelevant. It's an encyclopedia, not the Bible. If you must keep this opinionated trash on this page, which is about a political theory, and not on a separate page dedicated to the Aryan Nations group, there should be a Debated Neutrality notice posted at the top. We might want to add some info about... Oh, I don't know... alleged Zionists in the government? Hm?

--Rapunzel 14:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe you might, I'm only interested in the term, its usage, and the history thereof. If you have more info to add, please do, but be mindful of original research. If you must dispute the page, feel free, but I think you will find that there is concensus that these particular passages are of merit here. I do agree that more content might well be added, but thus far, I don't see you doing that, although I encourage such. 14:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Attempts to separate the "political theory" of ZOG from its religious roots are disingenuous. The people who promote this belief do so on biblical grounds, among others, and they typically don't differentiate between "Jews" and "Zionists". Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think she is refering to those who have different religious views from Aryan Nations, such as Odalism. Being an inclusionist, I say we add additional content, rather than make large deletions. Cheers, 22:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zionist Occupied Government


text:
Bloody Baron

Bloody Baron may refer to:

 * "The Bloody Baron", a quest in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt video game
 * a ghost and member of the Hogwarts staff in the Harry Potter series
 * Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (1886–1921), authoritarian ruler of Mongolia, nicknamed the Bloody Baron

title: Bloody Baron