text:
Twins in mythology

Twins appear in the mythologies of many cultures around the world. In some cultures they are seen as ominous, and in others they are seen as auspicious. Twins in mythology are often cast as two halves of the same whole, sharing a bond deeper than that of ordinary siblings, or seen as fierce rivals. They can be seen as representations of a dualistic worldview. They can represent another aspect of the self, a doppelgänger, or a shadow.

Twins are often depicted with special powers. This applies to both mortal and immortal sets of twins, and often is related to power over the weather. Twins in mythology also often share deep bonds. In Greek mythology, Castor and Pollux share a bond so strong that when mortal Castor dies, Pollux gives up half of his immortality to be with his brother. Castor and Pollux are the Dioscuri twin brothers. Their mother is Leda, a being who was seduced by Zeus who had taken the form of a swan. Even though the brothers are twins, they have two different fathers. This phenomenon is a very common interpretation of twin births across different mythological cultures. Castor's father is Tyndareus, the king of Sparta (hence the mortal form). Pollux is the son of Zeus (demigod). This brothers were said to be born from an egg along with either sister Helen and Clytemnestra. This etymologically explains why their constellation, the Dioskouroi or Gemini, is only seen during one half of the year, as the twins split their time between the underworld and Mount Olympus. In an aboriginal tale, the same constellation represents the twin lizards who created the plants and animals and saved women from evil spirits. Another example of this strong bond shared between twins is the Ibeji twins from African mythology. Ibeji twins are viewed as one soul shared between two bodies. If one of the twins dies, the parents then create a doll that portrays the body of the deceased child, so the soul of the deceased can remain intact for the living twin. Without the creation of the doll, the living twin is almost destined for death because it is believed to be missing half of its soul. Twins in mythology are often associated with healing. They are also often gifted with the ability of divination or insight into the future.

Divine twins in twin mythology are identical to either one or both place of a god. The Feri gods are not separated entities but are unified into one center. These divine twins can function alone in one body, either functioning as a male or as male and female as they desire. Divine twins represent a polarity in the world. This polarity may be great or small and at times can be opposition. Twins are often seen to be rivals or adversaries.

Egyptian

 * Nut and Geb, Dualistic twins. God of Earth (Geb) and Goddess of the sky (Nut)
 * Osiris - Isis’ twin and husband. Lord of the underworld. First born of Geb and Nut. One of the most important gods of ancient Egypt.
 * Isis - Daughter of Geb and Nut; twin of Osiris.
 * Ausar - (also known by Macedonian Greeks as Osiris) twin of Set. Set tricked his brother at a banquet he organized so as to take his life.

West African

 * Mawu-Lisa - Twins representing moon and sun, respectively. Ewe-Fon culture.
 * Yemaja - Mother of all life on earth. Yoruba culture.
 * Aganju - Twin and husband of Yemaja
 * Ibeji - Twins of joy and happiness. Children of Shango and Oshun.

Amerindian

 * Gluskap and Malsumis - A cultural hero and its evil twin brother for the Wabanaki peoples.
 * Hahgwehdiyu and Hahgwehdaetgah - Sons of either Iroquois sky goddess Atahensic or her daughter Tekawerahkwa.
 * Asdzą́ą́ Nádleehé and Yolkai Estsan - Navajo goddesses.
 * Monster Slayer and Born-for-Water - Navajo Hero Twins.
 * Jukihú and Juracán - Twin sons of Atabex (Mother Nature), the personifications of Order and Chaos, respectively; from the Taíno Arawak nation which once stretched from South America through the Caribbean and up to Florida in the US.
 * Hun-apu and Ixbalanque, the Maya Hero Twins - Defeated the Seven Macaw
 * Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl or Tezcatlipoca
 * Kokomaht and Bahotahl - Good and evil forces in nature.

Ancient Mesopotamian religion

 * Inanna and Utu.

Greek and Roman mythology

 * Divine
 * Apollo and Artemis - God and goddess, children of Zeus and Leto
 * Hypnos and Thanatos - Sons of Nyx
 * Despoina and Arion - Goddess and immortal horse, children of Demeter and Poseidon.
 * Palici - Sicilian chthonic deities in Greek mythology and Roman mythology.
 * One divine, one mortal
 * Heracles and Iphicles - Though their mother was Alcmene, Hercules was son of Zeus while Iphicles was son of Amphitryon.
 * Castor and Pollux, known as the Dioscuri - Though their mother was Leda, Castor was mortal son of Tyndareus, the king of Sparta, while Pollux was the divine son of Zeus.
 * Helen and Clytemnestra - Sisters of the Dioscuri, they were the daughters of Leda by Zeus and Tyndareus, respectively.
 * Children of a god or nymph and a mortal
 * Atlas and Eumelus/Gadeirus, Ampheres and Evaemon, Mneseus and Autochthon, Elasippus and Mestor, and Azaes and Diaprepes - Five sets of twins, sons of Poseidon and Cleito, and Kings of Atlantis in Plato's myth.
 * Belus and Agenor - Sons of Poseidon and Libya.
 * Aegyptus and Danaus - Sons of Belus and Achiroe, a naiad daughter of Nile.
 * Aeolus and Boeotus - Sons of Poseidon and Arne.
 * Lycastus and Parrhasius - Sons of Ares and Phylonome, daughter of Nyctimus of Arcadia.
 * Amphion and Zethus - Sons of Zeus by Antiope
 * Centaurus and Lapithes - Sons of Ixion and Nephele or Apollo and Stilbe.
 * Pelias and Neleus - Sons of Poseidon and Tyro.
 * Romulus and Remus - Central characters of Rome's foundation myth. Children of Rhea Silvia by either the god Mars, or by the demi-god Hercules.
 * Eurytus and Cteatus - Sons of Molione either by Actor or Poseidon
 * Ascalaphus and Ialmenus - Sons of Ares and Astyoche, Argonauts who participated in the Trojan War.
 * Mortal
 * Kleobis and Biton - Sons of a Hera priestess in Argos
 * Iasus and Pelasgus - Sons of Phoroneus or Triopas
 * Proetus and Acrisius - Rival twins, children of Abas and Aglaea or Ocalea.
 * Porphyrion and Ptous - Sons of Athamas and Themisto
 * Thessalus and Alcimenes - Sons of Jason and Medea.
 * Cassandra and Helenus - Children of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy with prophetic powers.
 * Procles and Eurysthenes - Great-great-great-grandsons of Heracles, sons of Aristodemus and Argia.
 * Sisyphus and Salmoneus - Rivals who angered Zeus with their deceit and hubris. Sons of King Aeolus of Thessaly and Enarete.

Ancient Syria

 * Arsu and Azizos - Gods of the evening star and morning star.

Norse mythology

 * Freyr and Freyja - God and goddess, children of Njörðr
 * Baldr and Hodr - "The Shining One" and "The Blind God", Children of Odin and Frigg
 * Móði and Magni - Courage/Bravery and Strength. Although not Twins in every Source, they often come in a pair. In some iterations, Twin sons of Thor and Sif.

Hinduism

 * The Ashvins - Sons of the sun God, Surya. Represent dualities such as building and destroying.
 * Koti and Chennayya - Twin heroes
 * Yama and Yami - God and Goddess of death.
 * Lava and Kusha - Children of Rama and Sita.
 * Nakula and Sahadeva - sons of the last born of the Pandavas
 * Lakshmana and Shatrughna - Children of Dasharatha and Sumitra
 * Indra and Agni - Mirror twins
 * Nala and Nila Ramayan

Jewish

 * Jacob and Esau - Sons of Isaac and Rebekah. Represented two nations.

Christian

 * Thomas the apostle and his unnamed twin brother.

Zoroastrian

 * Ahura Mazda and Ahriman - Twins of opposing forces: good and evil.

Ossetian mythology

 * Akhshar and Akhsartag - one of the main characters and progenitors of the Nart saga

Afro-Caribbean cosmologies

 * Marassa Jumeaux - The divine, children twins in Vodou.
 * Ibeji - Twins of joy and happiness. Children of Shango or Sango and Oshun.

East Asian

 * Izanagi and Izanami - God and Goddess, creators of the Japanese islands.

Selected literature

 * "Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) and Ahriman." New Catholic Encyclopedia. . Encyclopedia.com.12 Dec. 2018 < https://www.encyclopedia.com >.
 * “ISIS.” Egyptian Mythology for Smart People, egyptianmythology.org/gods-and-goddesses/isis/.
 * Lewin, Vivienne. Twin Enigma. Karnac Books, 2017.
 * Myers, Bethany. “Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC.” Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC, 2002, opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer= https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=uhp_theses.
 * Voth, Grant, et al., directors. The Beauty of African Mythology. Welcome to Virginia Commonwealth University | Kanopy, 2015, vcu.kanopy.com/s?query=african+mythology.
 * Lewin, Vivienne. Twin Enigma. Karnac Books, 2017.
 * Myers, Bethany. “Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC.” Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC, 2002, opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer= https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=uhp_theses.
 * Voth, Grant, et al., directors. The Beauty of African Mythology. Welcome to Virginia Commonwealth University | Kanopy, 2015, vcu.kanopy.com/s?query=african+mythology.

title: Twins in mythology


text:
Ramification group

In number theory, more specifically in local class field theory, the ramification groups are a filtration of the Galois group of a local field extension, which gives detailed information on the ramification phenomena of the extension.

Ramification theory of valuations
In mathematics, the ramification theory of valuations studies the set of extensions of a valuation v of a field K to an extension L of K. It is a generalization of the ramification theory of Dedekind domains.

The structure of the set of extensions is known better when L/K is Galois.

Decomposition group and inertia group
Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L be a finite Galois extension of K. Let Sv be the set of equivalence classes of extensions of v to L and let G be the Galois group of L over K. Then G acts on Sv by σ[w] = [w ∘ σ] (i.e. w is a representative of the equivalence class [w] ∈ Sv and [w] is sent to the equivalence class of the composition of w with the automorphism σ : L → L; this is independent of the choice of w in [w]). In fact, this action is transitive.

Given a fixed extension w of v to L, the decomposition group of w is the stabilizer subgroup Gw of [w], i.e. it is the subgroup of G consisting of all elements that fix the equivalence class [w] ∈ Sv.

Let mw denote the maximal ideal of w inside the valuation ring Rw of w. The inertia group of w is the subgroup Iw of Gw consisting of elements σ such that σx ≡ x (mod mw) for all x in Rw. In other words, Iw consists of the elements of the decomposition group that act trivially on the residue field of w. It is a normal subgroup of Gw.

The reduced ramification index e(w/v) is independent of w and is denoted e(v). Similarly, the relative degree f(w/v) is also independent of w and is denoted f(v).

Ramification groups in lower numbering
Ramification groups are a refinement of the Galois group $$G$$ of a finite $$L/K$$ Galois extension of local fields. We shall write $$w, \mathcal O_L, \mathfrak p$$ for the valuation, the ring of integers and its maximal ideal for $$L$$. As a consequence of Hensel's lemma, one can write $$\mathcal O_L = \mathcal O_K[\alpha]$$ for some $$\alpha \in L$$ where $$\mathcal O_K$$ is the ring of integers of $$K$$. (This is stronger than the primitive element theorem.) Then, for each integer $$i \ge -1$$, we define $$G_i$$ to be the set of all $$s \in G$$ that satisfies the following equivalent conditions.
 * (i) $$s$$ operates trivially on $$\mathcal O_L / \mathfrak p^{i+1}.$$
 * (ii) $$w(s(x) - x) \ge i+1$$ for all $$x \in \mathcal O_L$$
 * (iii) $$w(s(\alpha) - \alpha) \ge i+1.$$

The group $$G_i$$ is called $$i$$-th ramification group. They form a decreasing filtration,
 * $$G_{-1} = G \supset G_0 \supset G_1 \supset \dots \{*\}.$$

In fact, the $$G_i$$ are normal by (i) and trivial for sufficiently large $$i$$ by (iii). For the lowest indices, it is customary to call $$G_0$$ the inertia subgroup of $$G$$ because of its relation to splitting of prime ideals, while $$G_1$$ the wild inertia subgroup of $$G$$. The quotient $$G_0 / G_1$$ is called the tame quotient.

The Galois group $$G$$ and its subgroups $$G_i$$ are studied by employing the above filtration or, more specifically, the corresponding quotients. In particular,
 * $$G/G_0 = \operatorname{Gal}(l/k),$$ where $$l, k$$ are the (finite) residue fields of $$L, K$$.
 * $$G_0 = 1 \Leftrightarrow L/K $$ is unramified.
 * $$G_1 = 1 \Leftrightarrow L/K $$ is tamely ramified (i.e., the ramification index is prime to the residue characteristic.)

The study of ramification groups reduces to the totally ramified case since one has $$G_i = (G_0)_i$$ for $$i \ge 0$$.

One also defines the function $$i_G(s) = w(s(\alpha) - \alpha), s \in G$$. (ii) in the above shows $$i_G$$ is independent of choice of $$\alpha$$ and, moreover, the study of the filtration $$G_i$$ is essentially equivalent to that of $$i_G$$. $$i_G$$ satisfies the following: for $$s, t \in G$$,
 * $$i_G(s) \ge i + 1 \Leftrightarrow s \in G_i.$$
 * $$i_G(t s t^{-1}) = i_G(s).$$
 * $$i_G(st) \ge \min\{ i_G(s), i_G(t) \}.$$

Fix a uniformizer $$\pi$$ of $$L$$. Then $$s \mapsto s(\pi)/\pi$$ induces the injection $$G_i/G_{i+1} \to U_{L, i}/U_{L, i+1}, i \ge 0$$ where $$U_{L, 0} = \mathcal{O}_L^\times, U_{L, i} = 1 + \mathfrak{p}^i$$. (The map actually does not depend on the choice of the uniformizer. ) It follows from this In particular, $$G_1$$ is a p-group and $$G_0$$ is solvable.
 * $$G_0/G_1$$ is cyclic of order prime to $$p$$
 * $$G_i/G_{i+1}$$ is a product of cyclic groups of order $$p$$.

The ramification groups can be used to compute the different $$\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}$$ of the extension $$L/K$$ and that of subextensions:

 * $$w(\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}) = \sum_{s \ne 1} i_G(s) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty (|G_i| - 1).$$

If $$H$$ is a normal subgroup of $$G$$, then, for $$\sigma \in G$$, $$i_{G/H}(\sigma) = {1 \over e_{L/K}} \sum_{s \mapsto \sigma} i_G(s)$$.

Combining this with the above one obtains: for a subextension $$F/K$$ corresponding to $$H$$,
 * $$v_F(\mathfrak{D}_{F/K}) = {1 \over e_{L/F}} \sum_{s \not\in H} i_G(s).$$

If $$s \in G_i, t \in G_j, i, j \ge 1$$, then $$sts^{-1}t^{-1} \in G_{i+j+1}$$. In the terminology of Lazard, this can be understood to mean the Lie algebra $$\operatorname{gr}(G_1) = \sum_{i \ge 1} G_i/G_{i+1}$$ is abelian.

Example: the cyclotomic extension
The ramification groups for a cyclotomic extension $$K_n := \mathbf Q_p(\zeta)/\mathbf Q_p$$, where $$\zeta$$ is a $$p^n$$-th primitive root of unity, can be described explicitly:
 * $$G_s = \operatorname{Gal}(K_n / K_e),$$

where e is chosen such that $$p^{e-1} \le s < p^e$$.

Example: a quartic extension
Let K be the extension of $Q_{2}$ generated by $$x_1=\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}$$. The conjugates of $$x_1$$ are $$ x_2 = \sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}$$, $$x_3 = -x_1$$, $$x_4 = -x_2$$.

A little computation shows that the quotient of any two of these is a unit. Hence they all generate the same ideal; call it $\pi$. $$\sqrt{2}$$ generates π2; (2)=π4.

Now $$x_1-x_3=2x_1$$, which is in π5.

and $$ x_1 - x_2 = \sqrt{4-2\sqrt{2}}, $$ which is in π3.

Various methods show that the Galois group of K is $$C_4$$, cyclic of order 4. Also:

 * $$G_0 = G_1 = G_2 = C_4.$$

and $$G_3 = G_4=(13)(24). $$

$$w(\mathfrak{D}_{K/Q_2}) = 3+3+3+1+1 = 11,$$ so that the different $$\mathfrak{D}_{K/Q_2} = \pi^{11} $$

$$x_1$$ satisfies X4 − 4X2 + 2, which has discriminant 2048 = 211.

Ramification groups in upper numbering
If $$u$$ is a real number $$\ge -1$$, let $$G_u$$ denote $$G_i$$ where i the least integer $$\ge u$$. In other words, $$s \in G_u \Leftrightarrow i_G(s) \ge u+1.$$ Define $$\phi$$ by
 * $$\phi(u) = \int_0^u {dt \over (G_0 : G_t)}$$

where, by convention, $$(G_0 : G_t)$$ is equal to $$(G_{-1} : G_0)^{-1}$$ if $$t = -1$$ and is equal to $$1$$ for $$-1 < t \le 0$$. Then $$\phi(u) = u$$ for $$-1 \le u \le 0$$. It is immediate that $$\phi$$ is continuous and strictly increasing, and thus has the continuous inverse function $$\psi$$ defined on $$[-1, \infty)$$. Define $$G^v = G_{\psi(v)}$$. $$G^v$$ is then called the v-th ramification group in upper numbering. In other words, $$G^{\phi(u)} = G_u$$. Note $$G^{-1} = G, G^0 = G_0$$. The upper numbering is defined so as to be compatible with passage to quotients: if $$H$$ is normal in $$G$$, then
 * $$(G/H)^v = G^v H / H$$ for all $$v$$

(whereas lower numbering is compatible with passage to subgroups.)

Herbrand's theorem
Herbrand's theorem states that the ramification groups in the lower numbering satisfy $$G_u H/H = (G/H)_v$$ (for $$v = \phi_{L/F}(u)$$ where $$L/F$$ is the subextension corresponding to $$H$$), and that the ramification groups in the upper numbering satisfy $$G^u H/H = (G/H)^u$$. This allows one to define ramification groups in the upper numbering for infinite Galois extensions (such as the absolute Galois group of a local field) from the inverse system of ramification groups for finite subextensions.

The upper numbering for an abelian extension is important because of the Hasse–Arf theorem. It states that if $$G$$ is abelian, then the jumps in the filtration $$G^v$$ are integers; i.e., $$G_i = G_{i+1}$$ whenever $$\phi(i)$$ is not an integer.

The upper numbering is compatible with the filtration of the norm residue group by the unit groups under the Artin isomorphism. The image of $$G^n(L/K)$$ under the isomorphism

 * $$ G(L/K)^{\mathrm{ab}} \leftrightarrow K^*/N_{L/K}(L^*) $$

is just

 * $$ U^n_K / (U^n_K \cap N_{L/K}(L^*)) \ . $$

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

title: Ramification group


text:
Norfuk language

Norfuk (Norfuk) (increasingly spelt Norfolk) or Norf'k is the language spoken on Norfolk Island (in the Pacific Ocean) by the local residents. It is a blend of 18th-century English and Tahitian, originally introduced by Pitkern-speaking settlers from the Pitcairn Islands. Along with English, it is the co-official language of Norfolk Island.

Norfuk has always been a linguistic cant. As travel to and from Norfolk Island becomes more common, Norfuk is falling into disuse. Efforts are being made to restore the language to more common usage, such as the education of children, the publication of English–Norfuk dictionaries, the use of the language in signage, and the renaming of some tourist attractions – most notably the rainforest walk "A Trip Ina Stik" – to their Norfuk equivalents. In 2007, the United Nations added Norfuk to its list of endangered languages.

History
In the 1970s, the Norfolk community and specialists from mainland Australia noted that the Norfuk language was falling into decline, prompting discussions about how to implement Norfolk into the school system. At this point in time, Norfuk did not have a standardized writing system, as it was mostly an oral language. The Society of the Descendants of Pitcairn Islanders, founded in 1977, was a driving force behind the campaign to include Norfuk language as a teachable subject in schools. Faye Bataille was one of the first to teach Norfolk classes in public schools, in the 1980s.

The first Norfolk dictionary was compiled in 1986 by Beryl Nobbs-Palmer. It was titled A Dictionary of Norfolk words and usages and contained examples of words in the Norfuk language and how to use them.

The book Speak Norfuk Today was written by Alice Buffett and Dr Donald Laycock. It is an encyclopedia incorporating a large majority of the information about the Norfuk language and was one of the first instances in which the orthography of Norfuk was documented.

Norfuk became a language of Norfolk Island in 2004 by virtue of the Norfolk Island Language (Norf'k) Act 2004 passed by the island's legislative assembly.

In 2018, Eve Semple and colleagues received a grant from the Australian Research Council, in order to promote and facilitate revival.

Relationship to Pitkern
Norfuk is descended predominantly from the Pitkern (Pitcairnese or Pi'kern) spoken by settlers from the Pitcairn Islands. The relative ease of travel from English-speaking countries such as Australia and New Zealand to Norfolk Island, particularly when compared with that of travel to the Pitcairn Islands, has meant that Norfuk has been exposed to much greater contact with English relative to Pitkern. The difficulties in accessing the Pitcairn population have meant that a serious comparison of the two languages for mutual intelligibility has proven difficult.

Classification
Norfuk has been classified as an Atlantic Creole language, despite the island's location in the Pacific Ocean, because of the heavy influence of Ned Young, a Saint Kitts Creole-speaker, and his role as a "linguistic socializer" among the first generation of children born on Pitcairn.

The language is closely related to Pitkern but has no other close relatives other than its parent tongues of English and Tahitian. It is generally considered that English has had more of an influence upon the language than Tahitian, with words of Tahitian extraction being confined largely to taboo subjects, negative characterisations, and adjectives indicating that something is undesirable.

Many expressions which are not commonly used in contemporary English carry on in Pitkern. These expressions include words from British maritime culture in the age of sailing ships. The influence of Seventh-day Adventist missionaries and the King James Version of the Bible are also notable.

In the mid-19th century, the people of Pitcairn resettled on Norfolk Island; later, some moved back. Most speakers of Pitkern today are the descendants of those who stayed. Pitkern and Norfuk dialects are mutually intelligible, but differ significantly in vocabulary and grammar.

The Norfolk language uses the subject–verb–object (SVO) basic word order.

Orthography
The language is largely a spoken rather than written language, and there is a lack of standardisation. However, a number of attempts have been made at developing an orthography for the language. Early attempts either attempted to enforce English spelling onto the Norfuk words, or used diacritical marks to represent sounds distinct to the language.

Alice Buffett, a Norfolk Island parliamentarian and Australian-trained linguist, developed a codified grammar and orthography for the language in the 1980s, assisted by Dr Donald Laycock, an Australian National University academic. Their book, Speak Norfuk Today, was published in 1988. This orthography has won the endorsement of the Norfolk Island government, and its use is becoming prevalent.

Vocabulary
The language itself does not have words to express some concepts, particularly those having to do with science and technology. Some Islanders believe that the only solution is to create a committee charged with creating new words in Norfuk rather than simply adopting English words for new technological advances. For example, Norfuk recently adopted the word kompyuuta, a Norfuk-ised version of computer. Processes similar to this exist in relation to other languages around the world, such as the Māori language in New Zealand and the Faroese and Icelandic languages. Some languages already have official bodies, such as New Zealand's Māori Language Commission or France's Académie française, for creating new words.

Norfuk vocabulary has been heavily influenced by the history of Norfolk Island. Many words were created for specific animals or plants on the island and the way in which these things are named is unique to the Island of Norfolk. For example, many fish that are indigenous to the island were named either by the people who caught them or by whoever received them after dividing the catch. One such instance is the naming of the fish Sandford which received its name by a man named Sandford Warren after receiving the fish as his share.

Personal pronouns
There is also et for 'it' in its object form.

title: Norfuk language


text:
User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

Please add your new remarks at the top, so we can find them. I'll know where to file them when I have time...

See also:
 * User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

Stone circles
Uhh Wetman, I ought to point out that your edit to Stone circle is in the wrong place. You see, stone circles are circles made from stones. The Gosek circle you talk about is an earth bank and ditch, as attested by your own SciAm extract. Only visible from the air you see, in a flat wheatfield, a 'shadowy ring'- no stones. I suggest you find a more relevant entry in which to insert yourself. Kind regards --adamsan  19:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * (Adamsan has presented Wikipedia with the following definition of Henge: "A Henge is a circular or sub-circular prehistoric enclosure unique to the British Isles defined by a raised circular bank, and a circular ditch which normally runs inside the bank." So you can imagine the character of his User Contributions. See them for yourself, Gentle Reader. This is not just chauvinism, it is disinformation. Even a well-informed archaeology buff knows that twenty or so such circles have been excavated in Europe, out of 200 that have been sighted. No point in arguing. The point is to keep Wikipedia honest. See Stone circle, Nebra skydisk, Henge, Goseck circle for some illuminating context.Wetman 01:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh Wetman, these are not henges. The important difference is that the ditch runs *inside* the bank rather than outside which is more normal. It is a name for a monument peculiar to the British Isles. Certainly other regions have banked enclosures, to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. Nowhere however are they described as 'henges'- I'm sure they have other names, derived from their respective languages. To suggest that the entry is chauvinist is I suppose partly correct but only in the same warped way that an entry on moundbuilders in the USA is 'chauvinist'. We would all welcome further entries on continental European earthworks and I hope you will apply your expertise to these. Best wishes --adamsan 08:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Lunettes
Hi Wetman, I like the new architecture stuff in Carnegie Hall. I put in links to the existing articles on cornice and pilaster, but when I linked lunette, nothing turned up--could you perhaps provide a little article? Opus33 17:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Images seem to be needed not just for lunette, as you mentioned, but everywhere in architecture; it's an area where pictures really help. Opus33 20:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 Oops, just reread your message. Were you saying you could use advice on how to post images? Happy to oblige if that's what you meant... Opus33 23:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me--maybe just a tad bigger?

For images in general, there's one trick that you may find useful: if your original image is quite large, then you can use this nice system somebody invented to make both a smaller version and a big detailed version available. The user clicks on a little magnifying-glass icon to get the big version. Here's an example, taken from Piano:

thumb|400px|View from below of a 182 cm. grand piano. In order of distance from viewer:  softwood braces, tapered soundboard ribs, soundboard.  The metal rod at lower right is a humidity control device.

By editing this page you can see the "source code"; all you have to do is insert your own image name, image width, and caption. Have fun, Opus33 03:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Land reform in Zimbabwe
I have put a timeline on this page. I did not feel that the already overburdened Robert Mugabe page was the right place to discuss this issue, but I was not willing to add information to a page named Problems of. I had previously added discussion on Land reform on the 2000 referendum section, and felt that was enough for his page. Have at it, should you feel inclined. Wizzy 13:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your copyediting of Garden of Eden. Good stuff, new info, and a littel extra context. You seem to be quite the symbol buff. Quadell 14:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page: "Splendid photo for Les Invalides!"

Thanks! Believe it or not, that picture was actually taken by my 13-year-old brother. Andrewlevine 18:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) (feel free to delete this message once you've read it)

Plagiarism or Five degrees of Separation?
It seems that some of the information you posted on Al-Mutawakkil was copied directly from us-israel.org, and pasted this, despite the copyright on that page. I have for this reason removed it. DigiBullet 04:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * DigiBullet is referring to a decree of 850 A.D. as reported by the 10th century writer al-Tabari (d. 923) in an English translation by N. Stillman, that was reprinted in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985, and posted at a website that I credited in Extnernal links (where DigiBullet found it) at the Al-Mutawakkil entry. I initially gave a digest and part paraphrase of the Stillman translation in my edit at Al-Mutawakkil. But I have gone back and restored historical information suppressed by DigiBullet, entirely in my own words. I wouldn't want people to think I was sloppy and unscrupulous giggle Wetman 10:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Wetman's Gaffes
The thing is, is it spelt right? Twice now you've called him Jacques Villion (with two 'i's) yet the article is now back at Jacques Villon where it started. If you move the page again, remember to alter the redirects. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) I was hopelessly twisted on this one, First of all, I had it in my head that the poet Francois Villon was Jacques Villon, that the artist and the poet needed disambiguation, so I was meddling and... well it took a couple of folks to sort out my mess. Sorry, folks, and thanks. Wetman 23:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) -

I made a general topics sidebar for biology - at Mediawiki:biology - use tag to put it on articles as needed. Sub-field article sidebars like psychology can be worked on as well. - SV (talk) 18:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Infancy Gospel of Thomas/copyvio
Wetman: I replaced the material at Infancy Gospel of Thomas with the copyright violation notice because the text there was exactly the same text as on the website http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/infthom.htm, which seems to be the original work of one Geoff Trowbridge. He then holds the copyright on that work, and I see no indication that he has released that work into the public domain.

Under the terms of US Copyright Law, only the copyright holder (in this case Geoff Trowbridge) can license his works under the GNU Free Documentation License (a condition for submitting to this site, as stated below every edit window on Wikipedia). Unless you are Geoff Trowbridge (which it doesn't seem that you are), or have his express written permission to put his original work on Wikipedia and license it under the terms of the GFDL, submitting his work to this site is illegal.

This has nothing to do with the subject matter of the posting (as a matter of fact, Wikipedia is relatively weak on Chrisitan topics and could use more help in this area -- we could use the knowledge and expertise of folks like you), but with respecting the intellectual property rights of authors (a major tenet of the open content movement, of which Wikipedia is a part.

The original posting is available through the "page history" option at the top of the screen (keeping old versions is one way in which we comply with the GFDL). If you want to refactor the material (e.g. paraphrase in new, original language), feel free to do so in a /Temp page (as described in the instructions in the copyright violation notice). If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Seth Ilys 00:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You may also be interested in reading Copyrights, which discusses copyrights, copying, fair use, the GFDL and other related topics as they apply to Wikipedia. -- Seth Ilys 00:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Refactored articles/copyvios
Wetman: I followed establish Wikipedia procedure for dealing with copyright violations, as posted at Possible copyright violations. Please don't chew me out for adhering to community standards.

Again, I'd point you to the "Page history" link at the top of each Wikipedia page, which can take you to old versions of the article (including the original text which contained the copied material). It's not "gone;" your original post is still available, and can still be seen here. -- Seth Ilys 00:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About Eisenman
I see you added Robert Eisenman to the article James the Just. You found a far more favorable review of his book than I would have given it. While Eisenman clearly is knowledgeable about his topic (he is, after all, a professor in the field), he tends to allow himself to speculate, rather than to substantiate his arguments; for example, much of Eisenman's thesis relies on rewriting Acts, a step for which he provides no explanation of his process, nor of the need. (And as it stands, Acts has many problems of its own.) I got about a quarter of the way thru it before my skepticism made put it down; I felt that if I was this hard on David Rohl's book, I could not be any easier on someone who actually finished his doctral thesis. But I admit, the point of Wikipedia is present all POVs. -- llywrch 19:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * First, Wetman, I hope you didn't read my above paragraph as being critical; I'm not convinced by Eisenman's arguments, but my point was to blather at someone who knew something about them more than to criticize.

 * Second, I agree about your point about Nazarite. I'm a bit amazed that no one else has written an article about this, since it is one of the problems surrounding the historical Christ (some scholars speculate if the various references to "Jesus of Nazareth" aren't a misunderstanding of "Jesus the Nazarite", since they appear at least a few decades later when the term wasn't well understood). However, I just need some time to get this researched & done; I am glad you added some information about the Dan fragment/stela to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 03:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You wrote:
 * Is this a variant of Nazarene then?

 * Not exactly, although the Nazarite vow is mentioned in that article. -- llywrch 03:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Wetman, you guilted me into doing it. Take a look at Nazarite to see my contribution, before I get flamed by someone who knows more ;-) -- llywrch 00:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a complicated topic and I wish I actually knew a lot more -- I hope others keep contributing without trying to over-simplify it. Slrubenstein

Wetman,

Your reversions of my edits are restoring (to my mind at least) a point of view regarding the identity of biblical/Anatolian Hittites. I posted some comments on the Hittite discussion page a while ago, and when there was no further discussion I changed the page a bit. I don't have a problem leaving your (and Brice's) opinion on the page, but I do have a problem with dismissive reversions of my attempt to smooth the waters. Let us discuss this.

Regards, Fire Star 22:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One-drop rule
Updated as much as I knew how to, cited Supreme Court decision. Do you agree now that it exists? At least as a popular concept? Gets 1500 google hits. May I re-add the mention to Mulatto? jengod 23:00, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

music for the zillions
Care to express an opinion as to whether WP should include "suggested repertoire for the new listener? See: Talk:Classical music. -- Viajero 09:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mithras
Hey Wetman, just read your message; I dig your point. I'm planning to fill out the Indo-Iranian section a bit more in the next week. I like your revised stub, though. Bacchiad 18:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apostolic Fathers
I don't follow the point of your changes to this article. I wasn't aware that I wrote anything (1) that was contrary to "orthodox" Christian teaching (whatever that means); or (2) required a mention of the followers of James the Just. -- llywrch 01:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, sorry for the delay in responding, but I just now found your response on my User page, & not on my Talk: page. (I've since moved it to the proper place.)

First, I was not affronted in my comment above (although from its terseness, I see how it could be misunderstood in that manner). I was simply puzzled at the introduction of individuals who were not relevant to the subject in my eyes. (And we've both have had dealings with people who insist on introducing irrelevant material into articles, so you can understand that I was concerned where this new material was intended to lead.) Your comment that your intent was to provide some "historical context", & a slightly more careful reading, now explains your contribution. That was all I wanted in the above comment -- an explanation. I'm sorry that it didn't come over as I had intended.

Still, I don't feel James the Just is relevant to the subject of the Apostolic Fathers. Yet since what I wrote was a beginning based on some cursory reading (& thus subject to change & rewrite), I don't want to belabor his relevance. My further reading may prove you right -- or someone with proper training on the Apostolic Fathers at part of her/his seminary training may rewrite the entire article & prove us both wrong! -- llywrch 20:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

City Beautiful
Thanks for your comments. They are much appreciated. Regarding American Renaissance, that seems like an undertaking... :) -- Decumanus | Talk 17:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rio Cuarto craters
(from my talk page) I haven't been able to track your "see also" Carolina Bay reference. Tell more! Wetman 18:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Both Carolinas and some of Georgia are pockmarked with craters, especially along the coast, called Carolina Bays. I have been meaning to do an article on them (and I will as soon as I can) but have been so busy, I only have time to check in for a few minutes at Wikipedia. Maybe I can do a stub right now, and add an image and some detail later. Pollinator 19:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greek history
Re History of Greece: I considered a History of Roman Greece but I decided against because (a) there isn't much to say, and (b) culturally Roman Greece was a continuation of Hellenistic Greece, until the arrival of Christianity when it began to become Byzantine Greece. The only difference was that it was ruled from Rome. As to Pelasgians, I think they are at best semi-historical and don't merit a separate period (besides which I don't think they were actually Greeks). Adam 02:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may be right - feel free to write History of Roman Greece and insert it in the table. All the articles in the series need work, by the way. I have some sources for the Ottoman one which is just a stub at present. Adam 02:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This does get complicated. The question really is: does History of Greece mean "History of the geographgical area now called Greece," or does it mean "History of the Greek speaking people"? I might add a note on this issue at the article. Adam 02:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have ended the redirect of Western culture to Western world and have been giving substance to Western culture. I was thinking of melding the section "Western thought" into Western culture. Please notify me. Thanks.WHEELER 00:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mongolian death worm!
What - you don't embrace the existence of the mobile cow intestine of Mongolia??? Such skepticism, sir! You will never be asked to edit the giant frog of New Jersey ... - DavidWBrooks 02:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Pardon my intrusion, but on the death of its childless uncle, the mobile cow intestine fell heir to the micronation of the Grand Duchy of the Peoples Republic of Ulaanbaatar, and has adopted the style of By the Grace of God, His Most Imperial Squishiness, the Grand Duke Vermiformis, and of his other realms, Grand High Cecum, and has announced the intention to issue imaginary artistamps. -- Nunh-huh 02:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Pelasgians, again
I just made some edits to this hotbed of an article, would you care to have a look? (And good point about linking to the Leleges, I had forgotten about them.) -- llywrch 18:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm going to split some hairs with you about some of your last edits to Pelasgians. (BTW, Did you change the article name, or am I misremembering it?)
 * "Pelasgians spoke a language unintelligible to any of the Greeks." What Herodotus actually says (1.57) is that they spoke a barbarous language, which only means it wasn't Greek. IIRC, about the only people the Greeks did not consider barbarous were the Romans, & probably because of superior Roman military power. All we can really understand by this adjective was that it clearly wasn't Greek.
 * "... and to Zeus as honored at Dodona." Actually, Zeus's temple at Dodona was widely considered one of the most ancient (only the temple to Artemis at Ephesus, the legacy of the Leleges, was believed to be older); one would call it "the temple to Zeus at Dodona". Further, Homer's lines at Il. 16.233-235 refer to "Zeus, lord of Dodona, Pelasgian" (Lattimore's translation), so the reference clearly is to the temple.
 * About Minyans: since they are the descendents of Minyas, wouldn't it make sense to link to that article, short & stubby as it is? -- llywrch 00:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * PS - Making my changes, I see what you were trying to say at point 2. And yes, I agree the article is nicely shaping up; it needed something like the quotation you found to conclude the section on "Modern Interpretations" -- llywrch 00:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About Zeus at Dodona: I'll have to concede the point to you, since I don't read ancient Greek, & I haven't thought to look at any archeological records for Dodona. But as I indicated above, it's not a major issue for me. -- llywrch 18:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments
If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.212.76.57.103

Request for Comments
If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.Halibutt

Selected anniversaries
Read Selected anniversaries before editing those pages again please. --mav 00:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Oop! I had no idea the rules were so complicated. Wetman 00:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * There is a protocol Selected anniversaries which involves updating the day of the year April 8 with the items that you want to nominate for the selected anniversaries. You have to ensure that the articles reference that day of the year. Once that is in place, then you can put up to 5 anniversaries in the MediaWiki April 8, but Mav is the steward of this feature so if it gets changed, then please don't feel hurt. Just so you know, October November December January and February could use some more anniversary selections. Feel free to jump in with five events per day.Ancheta Wis 00:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) I saw that you were using past tense for the events, which obeys the rules. good.

Unsolicited encomium
I like the rants thought-provoking observations and assertions on your user page. More of that needs to be said, possibly louder. ...Ehh, it probably wouldn't do any good. Ensiform 22:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Triskelion
You should put your comments on Talk:Triskelion, not on Triskelion. RickK 09:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To me, it reads like a comment. It really should have a "maybe" or "pssibly" or something like that. RickK 10:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Armory Show
Thanks. I'm actually trying to add most or all of the Celebrating the Century stamp series from 1999. Eventually I'll have an index of them all on my user page so people can use whatever else they need. But thanks! jengod 01:10, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

St. Michael the Archangel
Sorry I can't help, My involvement was just moving the picture from a duplicate article at St. Michael the Archangel. - SimonP 00:00, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Antediluvian Kings
Thanks for the link Wetman, but you know what some people think everything I touch turns into thanks to you know what, so I will pass this time. Are we ok with each other now? My appologies for confusing you with Llywrch back in January. It seems you & I have some common areas of interest. I would like to know your views on a few things not just read your reports (not that I don't enjoy reading them). Keep up the good work, but try to use more emoticons to avoid being misinterpreted :o) Zestauferov 09:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Skull (mythology)
Just an encouraging word about that article, and I mean to do what I can to make sure it is kept. Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Crown of Thorns
I noticed your edit summary on Man of Sorrows. . . would you mind looking it over? Thanks. —No-One Jones 03:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

?
Was that a reply to my comment from several months ago at Talk:New Amsterdam? I removed material to the other article because there is a lot you can be written about New Netherland before one even mentions New Amsterdam. I thought the article should get more to the core subject. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were implying. -- Decumanus | Talk 15:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. No problem. I agree with you in principle, by the way. I generally avoid large-subject history articles because I find them to be less than satisfactory. -- Decumanus | Talk 15:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About q.v. and over-linking
Consider this a pet peeve, but with the use of hyperlinks, I feel adding "q.v." next to any link is redundant. This was necessary in the print encyclopedias because a given word might not be the subject of an article; those major 2 letters signalled to the reader that further information, which might be of use, did lie in article with that subject line. However, a reader of Wikipedia who finds a word (which is clearly linked) in an article that piques her/his curiosity knows that a simple click will let her/him to see if there is any useful information there. (In case you wonder why I routinely remove this phrase from Wikipedia.) -- llywrch 00:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * With every third word linked, and with contributors wandering about wikifying every month day and year, when a link is actually a source of further information, the reader can't see the forest for the trees. A useful flag is (q.v.). With User:Llywrch travelling along behind me, I am reduced to notifying the reader that essential further information is available at such-and-so link. I shall de-Wikify every article I edit from here on in, to make the remaining links useful. Wetman 01:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, mea culpa about linking. For example, I didn't realize I had linked to Jerusalem 3x in the James the Just article, which is something I try to avoid. -- llywrch 18:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus Christ
I hope you'll take a look here? I did answer the question you asked, and I think we can work together on this. Sorry if I made assumptions about your viewpoint -- I thought I was reacting to things I was reading, but I must have been a little confused. :-) Anyway, I've given you the name of "one historian" as you asked, so perhaps we can sort out how to fix the text?  Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 16:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: James the Just
I made the change because (1) when I saw "Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas", I momentarily thought you meant to allude to the entire Nag Hammadi Library (okay, I'll admit it's a weak argument, but I was surprised to think that this was the change), & (2) while that version of the Gospel is the only complete version, comparing it with the Oxyrhynchus fragments show that there are some significant textual differences between the two versions (e.g. the Nag Hammadi version omits at least one sentence that is in the earlier version). It is possible that this passage may not have been in the earliest version of that work; while I don't believe that to be the case, it's a possibility that must be considered in any argument.

But I see your point about disambiguating about the two Gospels (although my impression from surfing the titles at the local library is that the Nag Hammadi is currently the more familiar one of the two). Perhaps rewording this passage to something along the lines of "the Gospel of Thomas which was part of the Nag Hammadi library" might solve both problems. -- llywrch 22:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go for it! "Sayings" GoT is another was of disambiguation. As for variant lines, remember that the full text GoT had been translated from Greek to Coptic (probably with an Aramaic original?). As for current best-seller, my impression is that whenever there has been a mainstream reference to a "Gospel of Thomas," 3rd century to 1945. it's always been the "infancy Gospel" that's being dissed.Wetman 03:24, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done, & took the opportunity to correct an error I made. -- llywrch 16:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've nominate you for adminship. Please indicate at Requests for adminship whether you accept. Maximus Rex 07:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Per your request on my talk page, I have un-nominated you. Sorry for any inconvenience. Maximus Rex 19:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

admin
c'mon dude, you can handle this.. Just do yer normal job, and keep this as a feather in yer cap. You deserve it, you've earned the trust ;) Sam Spade 07:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanx for deciding to accept. To be honest it was a bit self-serving to ask you to, since it does mean at least the potential for more work on your part, and of course a benifit to the community at large. We clearly need a larger percentage of good admins. I have seen you in a variety of situations (having taken a stroll or two thru your contributions list, along w bumping into you editing a time or three) and its clear to me you'll be a fine addition, regardless of how much time you spend admin'ing (as opposed to donating beautiful writing, such as this. :) Cheers, Sam Spade 17:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice, I always wanted to eat one, have you? My best contribution is probably pantheism. Sam Spade 17:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oregon County
Aw hell. I was basing it off discussion on the Adams-Onís Treaty, which in retrospect was probably a typo. For some reason I thought that text was quoted from the text of the treaty, but I just checked and it is not. I'll remove the reference. Sorry. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Caucasian etc.
Wetman, thanks for the support re the Caucasian pages. BTW, I deleted your comments around Varietas Caucasia not because of their contents but because the wording sounded rather POVish and provocative. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 17:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Factual accuracy is never POV. The Caucasian "subspecies" of Homo sapiens is being given an unauthorized Latin designation, not according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, mis-using "variety" and making a blunder in the Latin. No reason not to say so. Wetman 19:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well... one can always express the same fact in many ways, and the choice of the words can be used to convey feelings or subjective judgements by the author: that is still POV. The phrases "hypothesis unsupported by evidence", "ridiculous belief" or "genial intuition" often mean the same thing, but the last two are definitely POV. (Or at least more POV than the first one, because what is not enough evidence to some may be more than enough to others.)
 * That's absolutely right. I did overstate previously. But to point out the intended sub-text of a statement, such as the use of Latin being intended to supply a scientific tone that is actually unwarranted by accepted usage or the facts-- that's a way to throw the daylight of logic on a subject. Rhetoric may always be identified and analyzed. Wetman 16:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: Baal
Thanks! I am about to do some more on it. I noticed you are interested in cults. Have you ever successfully edited an entry on one without one of its members changing it to match the cult's official position? --Administer 01:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Gulp, I'm actually interested in cultus, the ritual through which the Virgin or the Goddess or the Saint etc. is venerated. "Cult" in the other sense is a long tiring uphill climb, and the scenery is not inspiring. But I think we are in perfect agreement... Wetman 01:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, that's funny! I guess I misunderstood the reference to Scientologies.  --Administer 05:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Shh! you're the only one who's noticed. Wetman 05:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * BTW, I was surprised to see your post on Talk:Lord's Recovery. It's a small world.--Administer 06:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Unicorn
Hey, regarding "unicorn": If I'm using bad grammar, go ahead and fix it. If you feel I need to site my sources, go ahead and let me know. Don't assume I'm making things up. In the language analysis department, I suggest you go back to your Shakespeare. Compare the unabridged to the abridged editions of Macbeth, especially the scene with the play. The particular methods of capturing the unicorn have been recounted in every story involving unicorn lore that I've ever read- try "The Unicorn in Myth and Legend". thanks, Pat User:Patterson

 * (This discussion is continued at Talk:Unicorn Wetman 22:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC))

Wetman's first image: Classical orders
Looks good to me. More information on image syntax can be found at Image markup and Extended image syntax, (I'm no expert on HTML or image syntax I must admit). I actually edited for about a month w/o an account and only made one to upload an image. The image looks good, keep up the good work. Maximus Rex 01:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

1911
Hey Wetman, why are you reverting to 1911 text and then re-reverting? Have I missed something somewhere? :) Adam Bishop 22:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC) Then you can check the history for yourself, and see just what text is actually identical. Sometimes there is some. Even a chunk within a paragraph. I often start with EB text and work on it, with the expectation that only a phrase here and there ("mother of Alexander the Great" etc.) will survive the process. Feels like an awful lot of hard work is undercut by this bot, but maybe my basic technique is flawed. I certainly would be embarassed if copyright text turned up like this. You know: "Crete is a large island in the Aegean" or something... Wetman 22:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, I didn't realize a bot was adding the 1911 msg. Adam Bishop 06:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Naxos
Hi again! I just wrote Duchy of the Archipelago, and then I noticed you had just added a big chunk of text about that to the Naxos article. Do you mind if I take that text and add it to the Duchy of the Archipelago? I thought I should ask since it was so recent (and I never even saw it until after I wrote mine...). Adam Bishop 03:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure. The trick is to work explicit links into the texts: "for more detail...", working both ways, don't you think. Wetman 04:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yup, that I shall do. Adam Bishop 04:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Corny query!
Hi. Nice work on Baalbec. Why "wheat" rather than "corn" as it originally said, though? Am I missing the point? Thanks, Nevilley 16:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said at Nevilley's page, "Wheat" seemed more neutral. It's a sheaf of grain, like the one displayed at the Eleusinian mysteries, not an ear of maize that's in the god's hand. But what if it's actually barley.... oh dear oh dear.... Wetman 21:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Aha! I had forgotten that corn is maize in US usage, which of course does give a ludicrous impression! Sorry - you're quite right. :) Nevilley 22:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Theodosius
OK...I'm confused again :) There is already a Theodosius II article, so why conflate the two in Theodosius I? Adam Bishop 02:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Revert me. I'm hopelessly confused myself. Wetman 03:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiment in the United States
Please explain how I "control" Anti-French sentiment in the United States, considering the revert of your POV, bolded first paragraph was the first edit of mine of the article since December. And even then, I haven't done much at all on the article. RickK 02:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Bolding was a clumsy typo quite typical of me. I wrote a cautious an balanced introduction, quite unsuitable for this redneck entry. Suppression of text is always unattractive.

My edit and the censored version are worth comparing:
 * Anti-French sentiment or Francophobia in the United States is an exaggerated discrediting of all things French, which is given a rationale through disapproval of the actions and attitudes of the French government, but which can be recognized by its undertones of moral censure ("treacherous" "cowardly" or "frivolous") and by implicit jingoism.

Censored version:
 * Anti-French sentiment or Francophobia in the United States is a strong disapproval of many or all things French. It is often motivated or justified by disapproval of the actions and attitudes of the French government or the perceived attitudes of French people, and often takes the form of moral censure ("treacherous", "cowardly", or "frivolous").''

Words of mine that remain in the text reproach me. The substitution Strong disapproval has such a noble ring to it, don't you agree? This entry is actually all about justifying bluecollar jingoism in the US. Note the introduction of many, a fraudulent imitation of neutrality: note how "balanced" it appears. The context is now quite as dishonest as ever, and I feel dirtied. How can Anti-French sentiment in the United States be discussed if jingoism is not permitted to be mentioned? It's absolutely my fault for intruding on what is so obvious a crackerbarrel entry: tabloid patriots only. I rarely encounter RickK and his ilk, and not by accident.Wetman 04:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how I "control" the article. What I did was to delete an extremely POV entry in which you attempted to claim that the only reason why people in the US are against the French is because of US "jingoism". You also call it "an exaggerated discrediting". That's not exactly netural, is it? Isn't there any possibility that there might be SOME legitimate reason for the US feeling? But that first paragraph doesn't give any room for that, does it? Your digs at Americans ("bluecollar", "redneck", "crackerbarrel", indeed) only show your own elitist prejudice. And what is my "ilk"? RickK 05:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

(Readers may contrast the original with the bowdlerized and falsified version, and judge these assertions for themselves. From some perspectives, anything more than marginal literacy is elite.)
 * Apparently it is also left up to the reader to see that Wetman refuses to answer my questions as to how I control the article, and what my "ilk" is. Since he doesn't have any answers for these questions, he keeps trying to duck the issue.  RickK 19:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Ruthenian stuff
Since you were previously involved in edit conflicts regarding Ruthenian stuff, I just wanted to let you know that I've recently reorganized that group of articles a bit to accomodate for separate articles about the Rusyns as an ethnicity and the varying geographical terms. Have a look, I think it should be fairly satisfactory. --Shallot 21:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

(I did get involved with a furious nationalist with a dishonest agenda. A low point at Wikipedia, for me. I can't believe that Shallot has made such a fair and rational explication of what "Ruthenia" has mean historically, out of such unpromising materials!) Wetman 22:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Felice Romani
Felice Romani: Care to add anything? -- Viajero 18:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * mille grazias. -- Viajero 20:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Russian history
It looks like once again all the stuff about Russian history is being thrown into turmoil. I know you were quite interested in this earlier, and frankly, it's in such turmoil right now that I'm not tracking until the dust settles a bit. You might want to look at Russian History Harmonization, the project where the overview is supposed to be sorted out. -- Jmabel 04:54, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Diadochi
Thanks for the praise. The article was awful, and really quite misleading before, and seemed to be confused if it was talking about the period of the Diadochi, or the Hellenistic period in general (I've never heard the term "Diadochi" to refer to events after the 270s BC before), as when it talked about the then non-existent Achaean League. At any rate, it's still not really perfect, but a good start, I think. john k 01:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * (Now, thanks to John Kenney, it's filled with names that need entries...)

Well, actually, a lot of those people probably shouldn't be high priorities. Although the provinces probably should be filled in, and probably some of the names. The weird thing about Macedonians is how many of them share names with figures from mythology (Meleager, Laomedon, Menelaus, and so forth). john k 01:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Israelite in Category:Mormonism
Upon careful consideration, I do not dispute the removal of Israelite from Category:Mormonism, considering that it is also not in Category:Judaism, nor in Category:Samaritan, etc., but only in indirectly-related categories such as Jewish history. However, if Israelite were to be added to such categories at a future time, then it would only be fair to add it all the categories who have similar self-associative sacred beliefs regarding the Israelites. - User:Gilgamesh 11:26, 14 June 2004 (UTC)

categories
hi, I have very mixed feelings about the current category scheme and the way it is being implemented on a totally ad hoc basis with little or no coordination among users. A certain very enthusiastic categorizer has defined "Italian opera" as a subgenre of "Italian music", which seems to me to be problematic at least, although I suppose that doesn't prevent it from also being a sub-genre of "Opera". I find the whole business of taxonomies for cultural topics very daunting, and I can't help but wonder whether fewer, broader categories wouldn't be more useful than these narrow, fine-grained ones which are proliferating like mushrooms. One of the ideas is that categories will enable more intelligent queries possible, in which case narrow categories aren't so important, since we always have full-text searches too (at least in principle). I don't want to spend (=waste) a lot of time on the matter, but at least try to prevent things from getting out of hand. I've been thinking of a one or two broad categories, like "classical musician" and "opera singer". Any thoughts? -- Viajero 11:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm completely in agreement. Some of these categories are proving more useful than the lists. At a certain point, though, categories, like links, proliferate to uselessness. But listmakers make lists... Wetman 15:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: IE
Hmm. I don't want to be overly agressive, or to give offense, but I'd like to question your assertion that "The language family is possibly related to other language families such as Caucasian languages, Altaic languages, Uralic languages, Dravidian languages, Afro-Asiatic languages" is a "perfectly reasonable and relevant sentence"; first, this is fairly fringe linguistics we're talking about, and NPOV would dictate making clear that this "possibility" is generally not regarded highly in the field, and second, this sentence merely repeats the Nostratic hypothesis discussed in the paragraph above, which covers it quite adequately. If we think it's important to specify the languages covered in Nostratic, then that can be incorporated into that paragraph; otherwise, the sentence is redundant and POV and should not be included. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 05:45, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Not my addition, nor do I personally think that the Nostratic idea is useful, (not that that's relevant) but look at all those links to languages in the "Nostratic" super-family. Thjey're helpful. Why suppress them? Why don't you ake an improved brief paragraph suggesting the "Nostratic" range of languages. Wetman 05:56, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, my reasons for not doing so would run something like (1) It's a dumb idea that doesn't deserve extensive coverage on the IE page, (2) Anyone who cares can bloody well click through, and (3) If someone thinks its genuinely important to include, which it's clearly not, they should take the trouble to write something that makes sense, and it certainly shouldn't be my job to craft mediocre prose for them.

 * Looking back at that, I can safely say it's a little gruff side. Pardon me, as I just fell over a large object and am in some pain. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 06:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The merged para looks good; thanks. (Kukkurovaca=much nicer when not having just fallen over large objects) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Doric and Ionic Architecture
I saw an image you uploaded to the web site on Doric and Ionic architecture. It's from the Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. The image is one I've been searching for and I need to get a high res. digital image to use in a textbook I'm putting together for the ancient Greeks. Do you have scans of this image? If so, do you release them as public domain for these purposes? Thanks! Giulia Rossi - GRossi@abc-clio.com or 303-385-1608 June 16, 2004

Hi! I found the Public Domain Encyclopédie illustrations through Public domain image resources, which I downloaded to my homepage and uploaded to Wikipedia. Wetman 20:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004


text:
Talk:Brainwashing/Archive 2

Mind control and recruitment rates
I see no reason that "Mind control and recruitment rates" should be here, it seems irrelevant to teh subject and the article. Any arguments as to why it should be kept? Smilingman 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not belong there as it assumes that recruitment to a religion is based on mind control. Move the text it to New religious movements≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

invisible master
I saw a link before for invisible master and an article to go with it sounded like fiction but what ever why was it removed?(maybe i am wrong and the memory was implanted}Ansolin 08:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind Control by SkewsMe.com
I've been putting in time on this, my long overdue essay on the subject. I've tried to be comprehensive and as objective as I can given the controveries regarding this subject matter.

Wikipedia already credits my Brain Implants essay as the basis for its article.

I only hope that my Mind Control essay receives similar attention.

http://www.skewsme.com/mind_control.html

 * Sorry, your essay rambles, provides no sources, and completely blurs the distinction between "mind control" and "persuasion". Perhaps the intro of the Wikipedia article should clarify this. See below, "Mind control and free will" --Uncle Ed 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I provide links after every section to either direct sources or articles that list the direct sources. Mind Control and Persuasion are also very interconnected. As far as "rambling," I'll have to look into it.

-- Hi. It does seem odd that, to read this wikipedia entry on Mind Control, the reader is left with no awareness of the multiple successful CIA programs to create Dissociative Identity Disorder (aka Multiple Personality Disorder) for the military and intelligence value. Dr. Ewen Cameron and Dr. George Estabrooks are two of the well-known scientists involved in the programs, called BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE, which successfully produced the so-called "Manchurian Candidate". This is very important piece of history which has somehow been altogether left out of the Wikipedia article. Here is one source of historical information on this subject, I offer to those who are developing this article, in the spirit of 'reality-check':
 * "In The C.I.A. Doctors: Human Rights Violations By American Psychiatrists, Dr. Ross provides proof, based on 15,000 pages of documents obtained from the C.I.A. through the Freedom of Information Act, that there have been pervasive, systematic violations of human rights by American psychiatrists over the last 65 years. As well, he proves that the Manchurian Candidate "super spy" is fact, not fiction. He describes the experiments conducted by psychiatrists to create amnesia, new identities, hypnotic access codes, and new memories in the minds of experimental subjects.

 * "The funding of the experiments by the C.I.A., Army, Navy and Air Force is proven by the C.I.A. documents and the doctors' own publications. The C.I.A. Doctors proves that there were extensive violations of human rights by psychiatrists in North America throughout the second half of the twentieth century, perpetrated not by a few renegade doctors, but by leading psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacologists, neurosurgeons and medical schools.

 * "The C.I.A. Doctors was originally published in 2000 as BLUEBIRD: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality By Psychiatrists. Stvjns 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, but please cite some sources. No evidence=no inclusion. --66.83.20.147 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "Cults" section
There is a quote that "the majority of scholars reject mind control"... Is this supposed to mean that they reject the use of mind control? The existance of mind control?

This part of the page is rather poorly written/thought out - there is no clear idea of what this section is even about. While it appears that someone knew what they were talking about, those with no prior knowledge of the subject remain a bit lost.

Can someone who understands this add some structure?

The topic is too broad
Mind Control, as a subject, is too broad. The Russian Psychs who cut out pieces of people's brain, surely controlled people's minds. Removing pieces of the organ people think with in order to understand how to manipulate people surely counts as "mind control". "Mind Influence" too falls under "mind control". Advertising companies spend large sums of money to find out what "button word" will trigger reactions. Policiticans (such as Bush) have demonized "the enemy" for hundreds of years. And of course, every person who has been married for a length of time can attest that their spouse uses "mind control". heh! It is too broad a topic. Terryeo 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you'd like to mention these aspects in the article. Do you have some sources about Russian brain surgery, and the effects it had on people? What sorts of manipulations were the experimenters able to perform? (Not get people to commit murders as in The Manchurian Candidate, surely?)

 * There's been a lot of debate over the degree to which social influences such as advertising affect human behavior. Are researchers all of one mind about whether this amounts to "control"? Who agrees or disagrees with this? For those who disagree, what grounds do they give? Do human beings have the capacity of making individual choices, despite social pressure (such as peer pressure and social norms)?

 * Do legislators and judges agree that "he made me do it" is a defense for crimes provoked or even ordered by a third party? The My Lai incident comes to mind, as well as the U.S. Army's code of conduct and SERE training.

 * Broad it is, but maybe we can work on it together. --Uncle Ed 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Involuntary hypnosis
Cut from intro:

 * Electromagnetic manipulation of neurons, since the discovery that neural cells could be fired by establishing a potential voltage across a neural cell membrane in the 1930s, has been suggested as a technology, as has the use of hypnosis on unsuspecting victims by U.S. Government agents by using a device which is based on the microwave auditory effect (also called the "microwave hearing effect" or "Frey effect"). This type of hypnosis claimed to typically be delivered while the person is sleeping and completely unaware that it is happening.  The fact that the victim is unaware of it (and therefore cannot stop it from being done) makes it the only method by which hypnosis can be considered actual mind control.

Er, the fact? This is begging the question. The entire article is about the DEBATE over whether a person can be made into a mind control victim against their will. And here, the intro was saying that the victim "cannot stop it from being done". We definitely need a source for this.

If it's a fact, it should be EASY to find a source on Google. I'll leave it to other to do that. Once this passage is properly sourced, it can be put back. --Uncle Ed 14:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in unsourced, but you're misrepresenting "fact" in the context in which it appears. 68.166.69.245 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is poorly written, lacks sources, and I'm getting rid of it. -- CronoDAS 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another problematic paragraph that I'm cutting unless it can be sourced:

 * In addition, both the United States Secret Service (for its use of hypnosis un unwilling victims via the Microwave Auditory Effect) and the Central Intelligence Agency (for its use of brainwashing on an unwilling American victim temporarily residing in a Canadian mental health hospital) have been caught and sued successfully for acts which can be considered 'mind control.'

--CronoDAS 21:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind control and free will
Mind control means making someone do something against their will (or without their knowing it). Persuasion means getting someone to want to do the thing you want them to do.

What psychologists and judges have considered in the United States over the past few decades is whether mind control (as defined in the above paragraph) is possible at all. Wikipedia will make no judgment on this weighty question, but merely note that the APA called the idea "unscientific" while noting that "anti-cult" activists still promote the idea.

It will be interesting to our readers to expand upon the ethical implications of mind control, should it ever found to be possible. Does a zombie still have free will? Is it responsible for its actions? Can a government program an unsuspecting person to be a killer (as in novels like The Manchurian Candidate or The Bourne Supremacy)? Or can a person volunteer for mind control and lose a bad habit like smoking or over-eating?

Also interesting to our readers would be a much larger article (possibly organized in the form of a "portal article") about all the various ways one person (or group) can persuade another person to do something (or believe or feel something), as well as HOW and WHY people resist such persuasion.

Taking myself as an example, I wonder WHY I believe that the earth goes around the sun in an elliptical orbit, when I've never bothered to check the calculations. I know enough analytical geometry and calculus to do the math, but frankly I've just taken everyone's word for it. What made me trust them? Or, more to the point, why did I choose to trust them?

Anyway, there lies the distinction between the Mind Control and Voluntary Persuasion models of human decision making. The former says a person can be forced into certain thoughts and behaviors. The latter says that all thoughts and behaviors are chosen.

There is a ocean of difference between these views, with many shades of gray in it. If you put a gun to my head and order me to give you my wallet, did I "choose" to do it (and live) or was I "forced at gun point" to do it? Not an easy question, is it? --Uncle Ed 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

MK-ULTRA & Hypnosis
The section on MKULTRA directly contradicts Wikipedia's article on MKULTRA, which states that "There is no evidence that the CIA (or anyone else) has actually succeeded in controlling a person's actions through the "mind control" techniques that are known to have been attempted in the MKULTRA projects. The file destruction makes a full investigation of claims impossible." Anybody wanna clean it up? Wahming 07:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Movies about mind control
One other suggested movie concerning mind control would be "The Time Machine" where the sperate evolved branch of underworld people who feed on the surface people are controlled by their leader.

Sources for MKULTRA- The superscripts at the following place link back to the wikipedia page: "Project MKULTRA (also known as MK-ULTRA) was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program that began in the 1950s[1], and continued until the late 1960s[2]. There is much published evidence that the project involved not only the use of drugs to manipulate persons, but also the use of electronic signals to alter brain functioning.[3]"  At best, they are unnecessary. They don't provide information to back up the timeline provided.

History of Mind Control
Much of the subject of mind control concentrates on technology and events of recent history. But a group of people are capable of mind control without the use of a single technology but by creating a coordinated illusion around an individual. By feeding the emotional needs of an individual his or her activities can be directed or he or she can be brought to believe they are "someone great" or set apart to perform a special task.

A good example is the culture that surrounds movie stars. They are assigned a group of people who isolate them in their most productive years and "worship" them. They constantly push accolades upon them and virulently protect them from critisism. They feed their ego to increase their drive to perform and compete and force them to believe they can be "the greatest". Sometimes it works but in most cases stars fall hard.

Everybody practices some sort of mind control. Manipulating the ego of someone is by definition mind control. We manipulate the needs and desires of our children to do better and to aspire. This is not a value judgement since we do this often in what we truely believe is the best interest of the target. But these points bring out the fact that mind control starts very simply with everyone and is then perfected over time and as it progresses up the chain of power.

This being the case mind control has a very long history. It has been the practice of the powerful since at least the Egyptian Civilization. "Driving people crazy" and the creation of "beggars" is well documented in early European history. The creation of despots like Hitler and Stalin by surrounding them with success and emotional justification are more recent examples of the use of mind control to effect actual history.

Although this is a great article and in keeping with the NPOV standards it would be advantageous in my view to show the historical context of mind control since it would suggest that it is not conspiracy but an aged culture of power which spawns conspiracy. It is a defense against attacks that mind control is purely conspiracy and that in all cases it does not work. It reenforces the idea that it is far more prevalent then the average person is willing to believe.

thought control directed from compartmentalisation
i was directed to mind control from a link on the artical about compartmentalisation(psychology) i thought it would be about consciously controling ones thoughts, is this correct, did the author of compartmentalisation have this artical in mind when he included the link?

 * Removed * Mind Control 101 -- Mabuse 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

very interested in the references
I am very interested in the references for some statements in the article. Particularly under Legal issues at the last paragraph is the statement:

"In addition, both the United States Secret Service (for its use of hypnosis on unwilling victims via the Microwave Auditory Effect) and the Central Intelligence Agency (for its use of brainwashing on an unwilling American victim temporarily residing in a Canadian mental health hospital) have been caught and sued successfully for acts which can be considered 'mind control.' "

Further stated under Mind control in conspiracy theory is:

"These often involve proposed mind-control technologies such as the use of hypnosis, microwave radiation, or lasers to influence or control thoughts and actions, often by intelligence agencies and by secret societies, which has, so far, only been confirmed about the U.S. Secret Service's use of hypnosis and Central Intelligence Agency's use of brainwashing in past court cases where testimony was conclusive and the agencies lost."

I did see in browsing the history of this article that a legal case was cited, but not pertinenr to the above. Can anybody give me a line on such a reference or where it might be in the history of the article? Josephus2000 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No merge, please
Please do not merge Recovery from Cults (book) into this article. This article is about a phenomenon & the other is about a specific book in which the phenomenon features. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi,
 * I second the motion on PLEASE do NOT merge Recovery from Cults (book), this is the book with experts that are not on a promotional agenda. Please see the areas covered and note that it has over 22 experts that participated on the book and the areas covered.  There is not other book that is this detailed.Mind control is a big topic where the book is very specific. PEACE TalkAbout 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that they should not be merged. An article on the book could be of interest e.g., to someone who wants to know about the authors point of view.

 * Add my vote for no merge BanditmanEXE October 9th 2006

ELF technology?
"Tests with ELF technology are better documented. From the 1950s to the 1970s, both the Soviet Union and the United States carried out several experiments using ELF pulse transmissions to mimic human nerve impulses, in effect implanting certain states of consciousness -- particularly emotions -- by radiation. Scientists found that certain ELF frequencies, when transmitted in pulse mode, could induce emotions in subjects."

Anyone have sources for this? I'm going to tag it as not verified. -- CronoDAS 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Techniques that actually work
Which techniques of mind control have been shown to work, and which have not? I recall reading that the late Margaret Singer's theory of mind control failed to gain recognition as a scientific theory, because there was so little evidence for it. --Uncle Ed 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Ed, I am attempting to make changes in this article to move it from the realm of spectulative fiction and conspiracy theories into the real world. The fact that $175 Billion USD is spent on advertising every year (source: Sut Jhally, Advertising and the End of the World, ), and about $10B USD spent on PR (source: Toxic Sludge is Good for You by Rampton/Stauber) is a testament to the fact that these techniques WORK. I would like to revert your change to remove doubt that these exist --Bhuston 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no doubt that advertising exists. Nor that it is effective. Please be careful about reverting. We need to distinguish between advertising campaigns (and other forms of PR or propaganda) on one hand, and the "mind control" per se.

 * If there are scholars who say it's all the same - or there's a continuum, we can quote them. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * We don't need a Manchurian Candidate to show that mind control is real and effective. The goals of Advertising and Public Relations (both are offspring military propaganda and psyops) perfectly fit the definition of mind control. They are intended to influence thoughts and behavior, and they are effective. I'll dig up some references. This is straight out of Chomsky/Hermann, Bernays, Alex Carey, Rampton/Stauber, Sut Jhally, Gobbels, BF Skinner, etc. --Bhuston 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page, Uncle Ed wrote:

 * 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)

To which my response is: Can we not describe a continuum between "persusaion" and "mind control" with the determinant being efficacy? IOW, if it is only mildly effective, it's persusaion. If it is highly effective, it's mind control? The academics I mention above make no such distinctions, and I'll get you your requested references :) -- Bhuston 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the biggest difference between "mind control" and persuasion in general is use of coercion and the victim's inability to resist.

 * I don't have to watch the TV commercial or read the magazine ad. And even if I do, I have plenty of opportunity to reflect upon it afterwards in the comfort and privacy of my own home.

 * It may be premature to change the intro at this point, until we add the promised descriptions to the article. --Uncle Ed 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

...targets of deprogramming?
Hi folks. Regarding "Opponents of exit counseling generally regard it as an even worse violation of personal autonomy than any loss of free will attributable to the recruiting tactics of new religious movements. These people complain that targets of deprogramming are being deceived...". The passage starts out referencing "exit counseling" and ends referencing "deprogramming". Shouldn't the second sentence read "These people complain that targets of exit counseling are being deceived..."? lTanaats 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hassan's critics argue...
I have a problem with this paragraph:

"Hassan's critics argue that Steve Hassan uses the term 'mind control' (for what they see as essentially a strong form of influence) only to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. They argue that Hassan does not merely say that fraudulent salesmanship persuaded the believers; he claims that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. For this reason an involuntary procedure must operate in order to 'rescue' a 'victim' from a 'destructive cult', for 'victims' may not realize their victimhood status and may resist rescuing."

This is paragraph written in the present tense. Who exactly is saying that Hassan is just trying to justify the forcible extraction of believers? Who exactly is saying that Hassan still believes that "an involuntary procedure" must operate?

The paragraph as written is inaccurate and unsupportable and should come out. I've put a "fact" tag on it for now. Tanaats 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I took out the patently false and unsupported statements that Hassan currently is involved in "forcible extraction" and that he currently believes that an "involuntary procedure must operate". Although if anyone can cite an acceptable source that anyone is a bit uninformed and is actually making these charges then let's discuss it. Tanaats 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Distances himself" and "criminal" in re Hassan
I changed the section describing Hassan's history as a deprogrammer. He doesn't "distance himself" from the practice, that statement is spin. The unspinned truth is that he no longer practices deprogramming.

As for "criminal" that term has a lot of spin on it too. And deprogramming wasn't always even illegal. It was legal in the case of minors, or when parents had obtained a legal "conservatorship" over their adult children and were therefore legally allowed to treat them as minors. Forcibly deprogramming an adult in the absence of a conservator ship was patently illegal. Eventually courts stopped granting conservatorships, and deprogramming became completely illegal except in the case of minors. But around that time (and pioneered in large part by Hassan) techniques of non-forcible intervention were being developed anyway, such as Hassan's SIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

title: Talk:Brainwashing/Archive 2