text:
Heart block

Heart block (HB) is a disorder in the heart's rhythm due to a fault in the natural pacemaker. This is caused by an obstruction – a block – in the electrical conduction system of the heart. Sometimes a disorder can be inherited. Despite the severe-sounding name, heart block may cause no symptoms at all in some cases, or occasional missed heartbeats in other cases (which can cause light-headedness, syncope (fainting), and palpitations), or may require the implantation of an artificial pacemaker, depending upon exactly where in the heart conduction is being impaired and how significantly it is affected.

Heart block should not be confused with other conditions, which may or may not be co-occurring, relating to the heart and/or other nearby organs that are or can be serious, including angina (heart-related chest pain), heart attack (myocardial infarction), any type of heart failure, cardiogenic shock or other types of shock, different types of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), cardiac arrest, or respiratory arrest.

In severe cases where the heart's ability to control and trigger heartbeats may be completely ineffective or unreliable, heart block can usually be treated by inserting an artificial pacemaker, a medical device that provides correct electrical impulses to trigger heart beats, compensating for the natural pacemaker's unreliability. Therefore, heart block frequently has no effects, or mild and occasional effects, and is not life-threatening in the vast majority of cases, and is usually treatable in more serious cases.

The human heart uses electrical signals to maintain and initiate the regular heartbeat in a living person; incorrect conduction or interference from external sources can lead to mild or serious symptoms depending upon the location of the blockage and how severely conduction is being blocked. Conduction is initiated by the sinoatrial node ("sinus node" or "SA node"), and then travels to the atrioventricular node ("AV node") which also contains a secondary "pacemaker" that acts as a backup for the SA nodes, then to the bundle of His and then via the bundle branches to the point of the apex of the fascicular branches. Blockages are therefore classified based on where the blockage occurs - namely the SA node ("Sinoatrial block"), AV node ("AV block" or AVB), and at or below the bundle of His ("Intra-Hisian" or "Infra-Hisian block" respectively). Infra-Hisian blocks may occur at the left or right bundle branches ("bundle branch block") or the fascicles of the left bundle branch ("fascicular block" or "Hemiblock"). SA and AV node blocks are each divided into three degrees, with second-degree blocks being divided into two types (written either "type I or II" or "type 1 or 2"). The term "Wenckebach block" is also used for second degree type 1 blocks of either the SA or AV node; in addition second-degree blocks type 1 and 2 are also sometimes known as " Mobitz 1" and "Mobitz 2".

Clinically speaking, the blocks tend to have more serious potential the closer they are to the "end" of the electrical path (the muscles of the heart regulated by the heartbeat), and less serious effects the closer they are to the "start" (at the SA node), because the potential disruption becomes greater as more of the "path" is "blocked" from its "end" point. Therefore, most of the important heart blocks are AV nodal blocks and infra-Hisian blocks. SA blocks are usually of lesser clinical significance, since in the event of SA block, the AV node contains a secondary pacemaker which would still maintain a heart rate of around 40 - 60 beats per minute, sufficient for consciousness and much of daily life in the majority of individuals.

Types
Following the path of the electrical signals, the places where conduction can be blocked give rise to different kinds of heart blocks: SA and AV node blocks are each divided into three degrees, with second degree blocks being divided into two types (written either "type I or II" or "type 1 or 2"). In an SA block, the electrical impulse is delayed or blocked on the way to the atria, thus delaying atrial depolarization. By contrast, an AV block occurs in the AV node and delays ventricular depolarization. The term "Wenckebach block" is also used for some heart blocks, and can refer to a second degree type I block in either the SA node or the AV node, however the ECG features of the two are quite distinctly different.

SA nodal blocks
SA blocks rarely give severe symptoms, because even if an individual had complete block at this level of the conduction system (which is uncommon), the secondary pacemaker of the heart would be at the AV node, which would fire at 40 to 60 beats a minute, which is enough to retain consciousness in the resting state. However SA block is capable of causing problematic symptoms even so, and may also hint at conduction issues elsewhere in the heart, and therefore SA blocks are - despite their lower level of life-threatening risk - still "the most common indication for pacemaker implantation in the US".

Types of SA nodal blocks include:
 * SA node Wenckebach (Mobitz I)
 * SA node Mobitz II
 * SA node exit block

In addition to the above blocks, the SA node can be suppressed by any other arrhythmia that reaches it. This includes retrograde conduction from the ventricles, ectopic atrial beats, atrial fibrillation, and atrial flutter.

The difference between SA node block and SA node suppression is that in SA node block an electrical impulse is generated by the SA node that doesn't make the atria contract. In SA node suppression, on the other hand, the SA node doesn't generate an electrical impulse because it is reset by the electrical impulse that enters the SA node.

AV nodal blocks
There are three basic types of AV nodal block:
 * First-degree AV block
 * Second-degree AV block
 * Type 1 second-degree AV block (Mobitz I), also known as a Wenckebach block
 * Type 2 second-degree AV block (Mobitz II), also known as a Hay block - due to a block in or below the bundle of His
 * Third-degree AV block (complete heart block)

Infra-Hisian block
Infra-Hisian block is that of the distal conduction system. Types of infra-Hisian block include:
 * Type 2 second degree heart block (Mobitz II) –a type of AV block due to a block within or below the bundle of His
 * Left anterior fascicular block
 * Left posterior fascicular block
 * Right bundle branch block
 * Left bundle branch block

Of these types of infra-Hisian block, Mobitz II heart block is considered most important because of the possible progression to complete heart block.

title: Heart block


text:
Ouistreham

Ouistreham is a commune in the Calvados department in Normandy region in northwestern France.

Ouistreham is a small port with fishing boats, leisure craft and a ferry harbour. It serves as the port of the city of Caen. The town borders the mouth of the Canal de Caen à la Mer.

Etymology
The name Ouistreham derives from Saxon ham, meaning 'village'. There is no clear explanation for the first part of the name. A popular etymology is based on Middle French ouistre (Old French oystre), meaning 'oyster'. Most linguists agree on a Saxon origin, meaning Western or West (though some other linguists have claimed that it derives from the Saxon word meaning Eastern), because of the presence of Saxon-speaking settlers from England in Viking Normandy. Following this theory, 'Ouistreham' is a homonym of 'Westerham' in Kent.

History

Ouistreham has been a trading port since the Middle Ages. The harbour is now a part of "Port de Caen-Ouistreham". Since the beginning of the 20th century, it has been a bathing beach on the "Riva Bella".

On 6 June 1944, No. 4 Commando landed at Ouistreham (codenamed Sword) and fought their way to Pegasus Bridge, with the 177 Free French of the No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando given the honour of spearheading the advance. The assault on Ouistreham was featured in the movie The Longest Day, although the film location for Ouistreham was at the nearby village of Port-en-Bessin.

A "Roman camp" (Catillon or Castillon) was located on the left bank of the Orne near Bénouville. It has been leveled, only a small part of the northwest rampart remains. In reality, modern archeology excludes the hypothesis that it is a Roman camp, at least not from the High Empire, archaeologists having never unveiled a Roman camp dating from this period in the North from Gaul, apart from Arlaines at Ressons-le-Long (Aisne), and probably not from the Lower Empire either. The expression Roman Camp or Caesar's Camp generally applies to works dating from the Iron Age or the Middle Ages.

The Saint-Samson church and the tithe barn make from the border of the town of Ouistreham the heart of this city. Its proximity to the sea meant that the town developed towards the shore, to the north. Ouistreham was a village of fishermen and farmers where the activity was also linked to maritime trade. Ouistreham experienced the development of its port thanks to the extraction and export of Caen and Ranville stone. There are still some typical fishermen's houses in this town.

In 1779, to protect the shore of the Orne from English attacks, it was decided to build three redoubts according to Vauban's plans, at Ouistreham, Colleville and Merville. These redoubts were disarmed in 1816, that of Ouistreham was sold to a private individual who transformed it into a mansion. Remains of the redoubt are still visible at the "Petit Château de la Redoute" at 38 boulevard Boivin-Champeaux.

In 1866, a first villa was built near the beach. Its owner, Mr. Longpré, manufacturer of corsets in Caen, gave it the name of Belle Rive. A painter who had noticed that the sunsets on the shores of Ouistreham resembled those he had had the opportunity to admire in Italy, de Belle Rive made it Riva Bella. Little by little the dunes and swamps disappear to give way to villas and the first casino is built.

At the very beginning of the 20th century, the seaside resort developed around these luxurious villas and leisure facilities: thalassotherapy and the Ouistreham casino. On 15 August 1891 the société anonyme des Établissements Decauville Aîné provisionally opened a narrow-gauge railway of local interest (60 cm) between Ouistreham and Luc-sur-Mer. This line, extended in 1891–1892 to Dives-sur-Mer and Caen, was taken over in 1894 by the Société anonyme des Chemins de fer du Calvados. It will remain for a long time the most profitable line of the Calvados Railways network. While the other lines were closed one after the other in the 1930s, the Luc - Ouistreham - Caen line was retained. Damaged during the landing, it closed in 1944.

During the Second World War, Ouistreham was occupied by German troops. From 1942, the beach area became a no man's land; 123 villas by the sea were demolished to make way for the defenses of the Atlantic Wall: 80 concrete structures and an artillery observation post overlooking the beach “the big bunker” were built. On 6 June 1944 this surveillance post became a strategic place and its capture ensured the landing point on the beach of Sword Beach. Commander Philippe Kieffer's No. 4 commando comprising the 177 French marines (forming an integral part of Lord Lovat's first special brigade) then reached the bridges of Bénouville (Pegasus Bridge) and Ranville and thus operated the junction with the paratroopers of the 6th DAP (British Airborne) after street fighting in Ouistreham.

On 6 June 2014 Ouistreham hosted the international ceremony for the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings and battle (5 million viewers in France alone; 1.2 billion worldwide). There were 1,800 veterans, 19 heads of state and 8,000 guests of honor and people from Ouistreham in the stands.

In literature
Georges Simenon set a Maigret story in Ouistreham entitled "Le port des brumes" or "The Misty Harbour" in English. Published first in 1932, Simenon - who had a deep interest in canals and waterways - evoked the nature and atmosphere of the port at that time.

Transportation
The port of Ouistreham has a scheduled cross-Channel ferry service to Portsmouth, operated by Brittany Ferries. During 2017, Ouistreham became a new focal point for migrants and refugees trying to cross the Channel, leading the British government to contribute to improved security there.

International relations
Ouistreham is twinned with:

 * Angmering in England (since 1976)
 * 🇧🇪 Braine-l'Alleud in Belgium
 * 🇩🇪 Lohr am Main in Germany

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

title: Ouistreham


text:
Lists of hospitals in South America

This is articles is about lists of hospitals in South America. It contains links to the lists, number of articles in the category, and healthcare in each country, territory and dependency in South America.

Sovereign states

 * List of hospitals in Argentina (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Argentina
 * List of hospitals in Bolivia (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Bolivia
 * List of hospitals in Brazil (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Brazil
 * List of hospitals in Chile (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Chile
 * List of hospitals in Colombia (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Colombia
 * List of hospitals in Ecuador (Notable: 0), Health in Ecuador
 * List of hospitals in Guyana (Notable: 0), Health in Guyana
 * List of hospitals in Paraguay (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Paraguay
 * List of hospitals in Peru (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Peru
 * List of hospitals in Suriname (Notable: 0), Health in Suriname
 * List of hospitals in Uruguay (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Uruguay
 * List of hospitals in Venezuela (Notable: 0), Healthcare in Venezuela

Territories and dependencies

 * Falkland Islands: One hospital, King Edward VII Memorial Hospital
 * List of hospitals in French Guiana (Notable: 0), French Guiana: One full service hospital Andrée-Rosemon Hospital
 * South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have no permanent population.

title: Lists of hospitals in South America


text:
Mark Kimmitt

Mark Traecey Patrick Kimmitt (born 21 June 1954) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, serving under George W. Bush from August 2008 to January 2009; he was the 16th person to hold the post. Prior to joining the State Department, he was a brigadier general in the United States Army, and served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East. Kimmitt has also served as deputy director for strategy and plans for the United States Central Command, and deputy director for operations/chief military spokesman for coalition forces in Iraq, and served at NATO's SHAPE headquarters in Belgium.

Early life and education
Kimmitt was born in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, while his father was stationed there. His older brother Robert also served in the U.S. Army and was the former United States Ambassador to Germany. Their father, Joseph Stanley Kimmitt, was the Secretary of the United States Senate and Secretary for the Majority from 1977 to 1981.

Kimmitt graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point as a part of the class of 1976, and earned a Masters in Business Administration degree from Harvard University as part of the class of 1984. He also received Master of Arts degrees from the United States Army Command and General Staff College and the National Defense University. He earned a certification as a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) while serving as assistant professor of finance and economics in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy.

Personal life
He is married to Catherine Kimmitt.

Military career
Kimmitt retired from the US Army a brigadier general in December 2006. While in the Army, Kimmitt had command and staff assignments throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, including planning positions within both Allied and Joint service commands. Additionally, he spent three years as an assistant professor and instructor with the Military Academy's Department of Social Sciences.

Kimmitt's professional military education includes the Field Artillery Officer Basic and Armor Officer Advanced Courses, the Army Command and General Staff College, the Advanced Military Studies Program, and the National War College. Additionally, Kimmitt completed Ranger, Airborne, Jumpmaster, Naval Gunfire, Joint Firepower Control, Air Assault, Pathfinder, and Jungle Schools.

Timeline
Kimmitt's military service:

 * 1977–78 – Battery executive officer; 1/15th Field Artillery; Camp Stanley, Korea
 * 1978–80 – Fire support officer; 2nd Ranger Battalion; Fort Lewis, Washington
 * 1980–82 – Battery commander and battery executive officer; 9th Infantry Division; Fort Lewis, Washington
 * 1984–87 – Assistant professor, Department of Social Sciences; U.S. Military Academy; West Point, NY
 * 1989–91 – Chief of war plans; 8th Infantry Division; Bad Kreuznach, Germany
 * 1991–92 – 4/29th Field Artillery; Baumholder, Germany
 * 1992–93 – Division artillery executive officer; 1st Armored Division; Baumholder, Germany
 * 1993–96 – Battalion commander; 2/320th Field Artillery; Fort Campbell, KY
 * 1996–97 – Special assistant – J5; Joint Chiefs of Staff; The Pentagon
 * 1997–00 – Division artillery commander; 1st Armored Division; Baumholder, Germany
 * 2000–02 – Military assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe; Mons, Belgium
 * 2002–04 – Chief of staff and commander; Corps Artillery XVIII Airborne Corps; Fort Bragg, NC
 * 2003–04 – Deputy director of operations; Combined Joint Task Force – Seven; Baghdad, Iraq
 * 2004–06 – Deputy director, strategy, plans and policy; U.S. Central Command; MacDill Air Force Base, FL

Awards and decorations
Kimmitt's distinctive awards and decorations include the following:

United States awards

 * US Defense Superior Service Medal ribbon.svg Defense Superior Service Medal
 * Legion of Merit ribbon.svg Legion of Merit
 * Bronze Star ribbon.svg Bronze Star
 * Defense Meritorious Service Medal ribbon.svg Defense Meritorious Service Medal
 * Meritorious Service Medal ribbon.svg Meritorious Service Medal
 * Army Commendation Medal ribbon.svg Army Commendation Medal
 * Joint Service Commendation ribbon.svg Joint Service Commendation Medal
 * Korea Defense Service ribbon.svg Korean Defense Service Medal
 * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary ribbon.svg Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
 * Global War on Terrorism Service ribbon.svg Global War on Terror Service Medal
 * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal ribbon.svg Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
 * US Army Airborne master parachutist badge.gif Master Parachutist Wings

Foreign and international awards

 * NATO Medal Yugoslavia ribbon bar.svg NATO Medal for operations in Bosnia
 * NATO medal for Kosovo ribbon.svg NATO Medal for operations in Kosovo
 * NATO Medal for operations in Republic of Macedonia.
 * NATO Meritorious Service Medal bar.svg NATO Meritorious Service Medal
 * German Parachutist Wings
 * German Leistungsabzeichen in Gold.

Government career
After retiring from the Army in 2006, Kimmitt served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy, responsible for military policy development, planning, guidance and oversight for the region. Kimmitt served in this position until July 31, 2008, before being nominated as Assistant Secretary of State. Kimmitt's nomination was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but was ultimately confirmed, and was sworn as Assistant Secretary of State on August 8, 2008. In this role, Kimmitt was responsible for State Department political-military policy, with particular emphasis on security assistance and sales of arms around the world, as well as serving as the primary liaison between the Departments of State and Defense. He was also instrumental in recent counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, and negotiated the groundbreaking arrangements for the prosecution of pirates abroad. He left office in January 2009.

Nomination delay
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. After a four-month investigation, the IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him." The report also stated that the IG "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation." The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt ... failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate. The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

Controversy
After the Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre in 2004, Kimmitt said, "There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration. There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

Video footage obtained by the Associated Press seems to contradict this view. The video shows a series of scenes of a wedding celebration, and footage from the following day showing fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around a destroyed tent.

title: Mark Kimmitt


text:
Ouville-la-Bien-Tournée

Ouville-la-Bien-Tournée is a former commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France. On 1 January 2017, it was merged into the new commune Saint-Pierre-en-Auge.

title: Ouville-la-Bien-Tournée


text:
Horace Mann School

Horace Mann School (also known as Horace Mann or HM) is a private, independent college-preparatory school in the Bronx, founded in 1887. Horace Mann is a member of the Ivy Preparatory School League, educating students from the New York metropolitan area from nursery school to the twelfth grade. The Upper, Middle, and Lower Divisions are located in Riverdale, a neighborhood of the Bronx, while the Nursery School is located in Manhattan. The John Dorr Nature Laboratory, a 275 acre campus in Washington Depot, Connecticut, serves as the school's outdoor and community education center.

19th century
The school was founded in 1887 by Nicholas Murray Butler as a co-educational experimental and developmental unit of Teachers College at Columbia University. Its first location was 9 University Place in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. The school moved in 1901 to 120th Street in Morningside Heights. Horace Mann became independent of the Columbia University and Teachers College in 1940.

20th century
The school split into separate all-male and all-female schools and in 1914, the Boys' School moved to 246th Street in Riverdale, Bronx, and during the 1940s it severed formal ties with Columbia University and became Horace Mann School. The Horace Mann School for Girls remained at Teachers College, and then merged with the Lincoln School in 1940, and finally closed in 1946.

The New York School for Nursery Years (founded in 1954 on 90th Street in Manhattan) became the Horace Mann School for Nursery Years in 1968, and was co-ed. In 1972, Horace Mann merged with the Barnard School for Boys, next door in Riverdale, to form the Horace Mann-Barnard Lower School for kindergarten through grade six, located on the former Barnard School campus. At that point, only the lower school was mixed. In 1975, the Horace Mann School returned to its roots as a co-educational learning environment and began admitting girls to the Upper School. The Class of 1976 is Horace Mann School's last all-male class. In 1999, the sixth grade moved from the Horace Mann-Barnard campus to the main 246th Street campus and formed a distinct Middle Division along with the seventh and eighth grades.

The Horace Mann School was named after Horace Mann who was a lawyer who served in the Massachusetts State Legislature and was the first Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education from 1837 and 1848, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the first President of Antioch College. He used each of his positions to proclaim that every person, regardless of their background, should receive a public education based on the principles and practices of a free society. Mann played a leading role in establishing the U.S. elementary school system.

Institution
The school is a private "nonprofit organization under the Education Law of New York State and holds a charter from the New York State Board of Regents [and is] a 501(c) 3 [tax-exempt] organization authorized by the Internal Revenue Service".

Divisions
There are four divisions of Horace Mann, all co-educational: a Nursery Division (three-year-olds through kindergarten) located on 90th Street in Manhattan, a Lower Division (kindergarten through fifth grades) on the Horace Mann campus on Tibbett Avenue in Riverdale, a Middle Division (sixth through eighth grades) on the 246th Street campus in Riverdale, and an Upper Division (ninth through twelfth grades) also on the 246th Street campus. There is also the John Dorr Nature Laboratory, located on 275 acres of land in Washington Depot, Connecticut, used for extended field trips for classes of students starting in second grade and an orientation program for new students entering the Middle or Upper Divisions. The Dorr facility was recently renovated and is currently LEED-certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Current tuition for students in the Lower Division through the Upper Division is $61,900 a year. Financial aid at the school is solely based on need. For the 2023–24 academic year, 15% of the students received more than $14 million in aid.

Academics
HM offers twenty-six Honors courses and seven foreign languages.

Students in the Upper Division are required to study English, United States history, biology, chemistry, or physics or both, geometry, algebra, and trigonometry, and also meet various requirements in the arts, computer science, health and counseling, and physical education. Students must go beyond these basic requirements in at least some, if not all, subjects. They are also required to take at least through the levels-three courses of either Chinese, French, Japanese, Latin, or Spanish.

Starting in eleventh grade, students have more flexibility with their requirements and can choose from courses in biotechnology, calculus, economics, ethics, psychology, religion, political philosophy, United States legal history, and statistics, among other elective classes.

Non-academic requirements
All students are required to take a swim test and American Red Cross CPR certification in order to graduate.

Community service is required throughout the curriculum. During high school, students are required to attend grade-wide "Service-Learning Days". The school additionally offers extracurricular additional "service-learning" to high school students as participants in its "Service-Learning Team" or "HM 246". In eighth grade, one out-of-school project or three in-school projects are necessary for graduation to the ninth grade; in sixth and seventh grades a homeroom project is done cooperatively. In the Lower and Nursery Divisions, there is an annual "Caring-in-Action" day dedicated to community service that students and their families can attend.

Admission
Admission is selective with decisions based on recent grades, an interview, and the candidate's score on either the ISEE or SSAT test. The largest point of entry is in sixth grade, with between 50 and 55 places available each year. In the ninth grade, 40 to 45 new students are traditionally enrolled.

Rankings
In 2017, Niche ranked HM the best private K-12 school in the United States. Three years later, in 2020, Niche ranked HM the third-best best K–12 private school in the country and the 12th-best private high school in the country. In 2024, the Niche survey ranked Horace Mann the fifth-best private high school in the country.

Initial reports
On June 6, 2012, The New York Times Magazine published an article by a former student, alleging multiple instances of sexual abuse of students by teachers at the school. The incidents occurred during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The article also addressed how school administrators dealt with the incidents over time, both within the school community and, in the case of one teacher, in a post-employment reference. The victims were identified by partial name or letter. The New York State statute of limitations in most or all of the incidents ran out when the former students turned 23. Several of the central figures were dead, at least two by suicide—one of the accused, and one of the students. One of the accused, music teacher Johannes Somary, died in 2011. On June 23, 2012, The New York Times reported that Tek Young Lin, Horace Mann's former chaplain who also served as an English teacher and track coach, admitted that he had had sexual relations with several male students.

Hilltop Cares Foundation
As a result of the sexual abuse and resulting controversy, the Hilltop Cares Foundation was formed in the summer of 2012 by members of the Horace Mann community, including alumni, to help victims from the school and to promote healing. The charitable organization helps alumni with their therapy costs and addresses related issues in the broader community. It is a nonprofit and independent of the school’s administration and board of trustees. The Chair for Hilltop Cares said they strive to bring healing to the Horace Mann community.

Negotiations
In March 2013, the school was reportedly in negotiation with more than thirty students for compensation related to the abuse claims. Eighteen different faculty members had been accused, and events spanning the four decades prior to 2000 identified. In March 2013, The New Yorker published an article discussing sexual abuse allegations against former Horace Mann English teacher Robert Berman. In April, The New York Times reported the school had reached a settlement with about 27 of the 37 students identified as having been abused. The school formally apologized on May 24 to the community for the events that had occurred and published the actions the school has taken and protocols which were put in place to protect current and future students.

title: Horace Mann School


text:
Genesis Live

Genesis Live is the first live album from the English rock band Genesis, released on 20 July 1973 on Charisma Records. Initially recorded for radio broadcast on the American rock program King Biscuit Flower Hour, the album is formed from the recordings of shows at Free Trade Hall, Manchester and De Montfort Hall, Leicester in February 1973 during the band's tour supporting their fourth studio album Foxtrot (1972).

Genesis Live is the band's first album to enter the top 10 in the UK, reaching No. 9. Following its US release in 1974, it peaked at No. 105.

History
Genesis were persuaded by their label, Charisma Records, to release Genesis Live as a budget-priced title to mark time while the band recorded Selling England by the Pound in mid-1973. The group's manager, Tony Stratton Smith said that the low price would allow it to be sold in stores such as Woolworths and WHSmith. Genesis Live was issued in the US several months after Selling England's release, which upset Gabriel as the album included songs from their old live sets and was quickly recorded with little care given to the quality of the recordings. When Gabriel reluctantly agreed to have the album released, part of the deal was that it would not be issued in the US.

The album was recorded when the band was touring in support of Foxtrot, by the Pye Mobile Recording Unit, engineer Alan Perkins; all tracks were recorded at De Montfort Hall, Leicester, England on February 25, 1973 except for "The Return of the Giant Hogweed", which was recorded at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, England on the previous day. These recordings were originally made for the U.S. radio show King Biscuit Flower Hour, though they were never broadcast. John Burns mixed the multi-track tapes in July 1973.

A handful of early radio promotional double-LP test pressings were created which included a 23-minute version of "Supper's Ready" from the Leicester show. This album's running order was "Watcher of the Skies", "The Musical Box", "Get 'Em Out by Friday", "Supper's Ready", "The Return of the Giant Hogweed", "The Knife", and included between-song patter by Gabriel. "Supper's Ready" was not included in the officially released version, even though the front cover photograph was taken during a live performance of the song (with Gabriel donning the "Magog" mask). A live recording of "Supper's Ready" from later that same year was released on 1998's 4-CD boxed set, Genesis Archive 1967–75. However, Gabriel re-recorded some vocals for that release.

A remastered version was released on CD in 1994 by Virgin in Europe and Atlantic in the US and Canada. A remixed version was included in 2009's Genesis Live 1973–2007 set, also released by Virgin in Europe and Atlantic in the U.S. and Canada.

A surrealistic short story by Peter Gabriel was printed on the back cover of the album. William Friedkin, who directed the film The Exorcist, read the story and was interested in possibly working with Gabriel on a film. Discussions with Friedkin took Gabriel away from the 1974 recording of The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, his final album with the group.

Critical reception
Rolling Stone gave the album a brief but positive review, commenting that "this album goes a long way toward capturing the gripping power and mysticism that has many fans acclaiming Genesis as 'the greatest live band ever.

A retrospective review by AllMusic was also resoundingly positive. They remarked "it's doubtful that anyone ever got a richer sound out of a Mellotron on-stage than Tony Banks does on this album, and Steve Hackett, Mike Rutherford, and Phil Collins' playing is all quite amazing as a whole unit, holding together some very complex music in a live setting". They judged all the recordings to be far superior to their studio originals.

Track listing
All songs by Tony Banks, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Steve Hackett and Mike Rutherford, except "The Knife", by Banks, Gabriel, Anthony Phillips and Rutherford.

Personnel

 * Peter Gabriel – lead vocals, flute, tambourine, bass drum
 * Tony Banks – Hammond organ, Mellotron, Hohner Pianet, 12-string guitar, backing vocals
 * Steve Hackett – lead guitar
 * Mike Rutherford – bass guitar, Dewtron "Mister Bassman" bass pedal synthesizer, 12-string guitar, backing vocals
 * Phil Collins – drums, percussion, backing vocals

Release history
All releases of Genesis Live on Charisma Records in the U.S. were distributed by Buddah Records.

US LP releases

 * Charisma CAS-1666 (1973): first issue with large Mad Hatter label.
 * Charisma CAS-1666 (1973): second issue with pink scroll label.
 * Charisma CAS-1666 (1974): third issue with small Mad Hatter label.
 * Atlantic 81855-1 (1982): Reissue.

US CD releases

 * Atlantic 81855-2 (1988): First U.S. CD release.
 * Atlantic 82676-2 (1994): Definitive Edition Remaster.

title: Genesis Live


text:
User:Peter bankers~enwiki

Peter Bankers: Born in Deurne, North Brabant, the Netherlands, where I live, left and returned to again in 1998. Since 1998 I have taken photos of Deurne and its sourrounding area focusing on the landscape of the Southeastern Netherlands DEURNE and surrounding area photos'''

title: User:Peter bankers~enwiki


text:
List of geological features on Enceladus

This is a list of named geological features on Enceladus. Geological features on Enceladus are named after people and places from Burton's translation of The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, also known as  The Tales of the Arabian Nights.

Planitiae
Enceladean plains are called planitiae. They are named after the locations of events in the Arabian Nights.

Dorsa
Enceladean ridges are called dorsa. They are named after the locations of events in the Arabian Nights.

Sulci
Sulci are long, parallel grooves. Enceladean sulci are named after the locations of events in the Arabian Nights.

Fossae
Fossae are ditches or trenches. Enceladean fossae are named after the locations of events in the Arabian Nights.

Rupes
On Enceladus, escarpments are called rupes.

Craters
Enceladean craters are named after characters in the Arabian Nights.


text:
Talk:Genesis Live

Title
Genesis Live or simple Live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledpoison1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Lyrics
there are alternate lyrics for both the knife and tRotGH on this album. the knife is a bit more obvious and as for hogweed on NC peter doesnt shout giant hogweed lives!

Register
"Register"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.140.113.126 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Amx5ibkd96akn

 * Fixed by User:Mystery Roach Gandru (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genesis Live. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204000536/http://www.caminorecords.com:80/product/genesis_live.html to http://www.caminorecords.com/product/genesis_live.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/genesis/albums/album/112925/review/5941776/genesis_live

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Double LP Test pressing!?
This article now asserts that a test-pressing of "Live" as a double album was done, and presumably, exists somewhere. I don't see any citations or documentations for this; the Genesis Discography by Scott McMahan discussed this 20+ years ago (I assume it is still available on line somewhere) and after much speculation dismissed the idea as nonsense; the band were not well enough known to justify the expense, McMahan says, and "Supper's Ready" had just appeared on the previous record, taking up a whole side, and so that much space was not thought worth devoting to one track.

Of course, if such a thing does exist, it's a new Holy Grail in record collecting -- so, is there any actual evidence to support it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.202.249 (talk)

 * I don't believe I have seen a reliable (ie: not forums, blogs, fansites etc) source that has said that a test double album was ever pressed, though the De Montford Hall gig did leak, which is where these have come from. I think we could say that the double album was rumoured; the problem is getting sources for it. I wonder if has got anything? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  21:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Morning, chaps. I haven't seen anything reliable that confirms it, either. Probably the best we have is Hewitt's book saying that a double is "reportedly" to exist. See this page for some more fansite/blog info: http://www.bluesnaggletooth12.com/mysteries.html#live Cheers, . LowSelfEstidle (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Genesis Live


text:
Parfouru-sur-Odon

Parfouru-sur-Odon (, literally Parfouru on Odon) is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

title: Parfouru-sur-Odon


text:
Talk:Ted Tonks

For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Ted Tonks

I don't beileve we can assume Ted Tonk's first name is Theodore any more than we can assume Ginny Weasley's first name is Virginia -- that turned out to be wrong.

 * I agree; I have a friend called Ted and it's short for "Edward". Rosemary Amey 16:30, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ted Tonks


text:
Pennedepie

Pennedepie is a commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France.

title: Pennedepie


text:
Percy-en-Auge

Percy-en-Auge (, literally Percy in Auge) is a former commune in the Calvados department in the Normandy region in northwestern France. On 1 January 2017, it was merged into the new commune Mézidon Vallée d'Auge. It is the ancestral home of the House of Percy.

Since 1988 it has been twinned with the English parish of Nursling and Rownhams in Hampshire.

title: Percy-en-Auge


text:
Luxembourg District

The District of Luxembourg was one of three districts of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. It contained four cantons, divided into 44 communes:

 * 1) Capellen
 * 2) *Dippach
 * 3) *Garnich
 * 4) *Habscht
 * 5) *Käerjeng
 * 6) *Kehlen
 * 7) *Koerich
 * 8) *Kopstal
 * 9) *Mamer
 * 10) *Steinfort
 * 11) Esch-sur-Alzette
 * 12) *Bettembourg
 * 13) *Differdange
 * 14) *Dudelange
 * 15) *Esch-sur-Alzette
 * 16) *Frisange
 * 17) *Kayl
 * 18) *Leudelange
 * 19) *Mondercange
 * 20) *Pétange
 * 21) *Reckange-sur-Mess
 * 22) *Roeser
 * 23) *Rumelange
 * 24) *Sanem
 * 25) *Schifflange
 * 26) Luxembourg
 * 27) *Bertrange
 * 28) *Contern
 * 29) *Hesperange
 * 30) *Luxembourg
 * 31) *Niederanven
 * 32) *Sandweiler
 * 33) *Schuttrange
 * 34) *Steinsel
 * 35) *Strassen
 * 36) *Walferdange
 * 37) *Weiler-la-Tour
 * 38) Mersch
 * 39) *Bissen
 * 40) *Colmar-Berg
 * 41) *Fischbach
 * 42) *Heffingen
 * 43) *Helperknapp
 * 44) *Larochette
 * 45) *Lintgen
 * 46) *Lorentzweiler
 * 47) *Mersch
 * 48) *Nommern

It bordered the district of Grevenmacher to the east, the district of Diekirch to the north, the Belgian province of Luxembourg (Wallonia) to the west and the French Département of Moselle (Grand Est) to the south. It also had the highest per capita income of the districts of the duchy. Its per capita income was $72,300.

After the reorganization of Luxembourg's administrative divisions in 2015, all three districts were abolished per 3 October 2015.

title: Luxembourg District


text:
Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 3

On the question of whether a conspiracy theory is by definition something that is held to be false by the majority of mainstream historians, let's take one of the longest-standing conspiratorial debates: did Nero order Rome burned? Historians reputable and otherwise have been debating this from Nero's day to ours, and it is pretty clear that no definitive answer is likely to emerge (Chomsky says that history in general does not admit of definitive conclusions but, of course, he's controversial). The "consensus" has varied over time; I believe the pro-Nero forces have pulled ahead in recent years. We can't hire Pew to run a survey to establish whether this notion is a paranoid fantasy or an uncontroversial fact based on what 51% say this year. There simply is not a hard line to be drawn here. The notion that you can distinguish globally between conspiracy theories that are true and those that are false and define the two as different sorts of fish assumes a hubristic and completely unfounded certainty to your own view of the world.

 * Uh, no. First off, you over simplified my definition, to the point where what you write is not what I said. RK

 * OK, here is what you said: " I am trying to distinguish between legitimate historical speculation, and faith in non-existent conspiracies. In general English useage, the term "conspiracy theory" does not refer to speculations about what historians may consider conspiracies. Rather, that term is used solely to discuss a belief in non-existent conspiracies. This distinction is critical." If a conspiracy theory refers to a non-existent conspiracy, it is false. That is prejudging the case. It is true that you later muted this position by talking about what "mainstream" opinion considers false, but this raises other questions, which I'll get to.

Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Second, this has nothing to do with "my own view of the world", as you incorrectly claim.

 * If you view a conspiracy theory as false, that is part of your view of the world.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, above, and also do some mainstream reading on the mentality behind conspiracy theory believers. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * You notice I referenced Hofstader and Albert already? I've done a fair amount of such reading. If you have an argument make it, don't hide behind homework assignments.

 * If a conspiracy theory is a theory that has not yet been proven, but may (as you have conceded) be proven in the future, that means the theory is potentially true at the moment it is conceived. Therefore, no assertions about the "mentality" of the author of said theory that assume the theory is false are valid. Given that, what assertions would you like to make? Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The notion that mundane conspiracies such as the Mafia have always been uncontroversial is also false. For years, many Italian intellectuals insisted that the Mafia was a paranoid fantasy. An informal network of Silcilian "mafias", sure, but not a single hierarchical organization directing much of Italian crime and politics (I'll forego the cheap shots here). A series of trials in the early 90's refuted this position.

 * You are contradicting a claim that no one is making. Again, you have totally misread what I wrote. In fact, I totally agree with you that real conspiracies do exist, and I personally added a lot to this article on precisely this point. There are many actual conspiracies that people at one point in time do not believe, but at a later point in time admit exist, because evidence to prove this conspiracy has come to light. All of us editing this article have taken great pains to say this. However, the subject of this article is not about conspiracies that have been proven to be true. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I have not misread anything. If you think that I am simply arguing the existence of mundane conspiracies, it is you who are not following me. The argument is not whether real conspiracies exist, on that matter we agree, but whether there is a fundamental difference between conspiracies that are accepted by the mainstream and those that are not. If there is, this difference should be definable in reference to the conspiracy theory itself, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. The purpose of a definition is to render the identity of something intelligible, not to encapsulate judgments of it, "mainstream" or otherwise.

 * I disagree. Mainstream historians point out that there is a fundamental difference between actual conspiracies that are regarded as factual, or at least as highly possible, and those conspiracy theories which are known or believed to be false, if not inane. Perhaps it is my fault for not writing a section on this topic; I plan to do so this week.  RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * After all, other types of theories are not defined in reference to who believes them. Suppose I defined Darwinism as follows:

 * "Darwinism: a theory about the development of life that is not believed by the majority of the American people"

 * Now, that's a funny definition, isn't it? It's a true statement, last I heard, but it doesn't tell us about Darwinism - it tells us about the beliefs of the American people. But what is the difference between that and

 * "Conspiracy Theory: A theory about the causes of current or historical events that is not believed by the majority of mainstream opinion"

 * Note that the problem is not solved if I toss in some appropriate material:

 * "Darwinism: A theory, disbelieved by the majority of the American people, that the development of life is guided solely by random mutation and natural selection"

 * It's an improvement, but that "disbelieved" phrase still doesn't belong there. Indeed, it sounds like the originator of the definition is trying to manipulate you into a certain conclusion about Darwinism, doesn't it? It adds nothing to the description and it creates an entirely artificial problem: what if the American people throw down their Bibles and embrace Darwinism? That doesn't simply mean that Darwinism was refused and is now accepted. No, since Darwinism was by definition something the American people disbelieved, if the American people embrace it, it is no longer Darwinism. It is something else. We need two categories to parallel your "real conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories". How about "far-fetched Darwinism" and "credible Darwinism"; the two are completely identical in content, but entirely different in essence, because one is sprinkled with the magic pixie dust of widespread belief. You could even print out a description of the theory and mount it on the wall, watching its essence change as the American people embraced then abandoned it.

 * Alternatively, we could define Darwinism thusly:

 * "Darwinism: A theory that the development of life is guided solely by random mutation and natural selection"

 * Notice that this definition stays the same even as people's beliefs about Darwinism change. This tells us that it is defining Darwinism, not people's beliefs. It is also non-manipulative.

 * This is how theories in general are defined. There are a variety of physical theories regarding dark matter, including theories that it does not exist. They can't all be true, but we don't know yet which, if any, are true. Some are believed by many scientists, and some by few, so there is a "mainstream" and a "fringe". However, all these theories as their fortunes rise and fall remain scientific theories. They do not become theories of another type depending on who believes them or why. Even if they are proven false, they remain scientific theories, just ones that weren't true.

 * Now, there may also be non-scientific (e.g., "new age") theories about dark matter. But what makes these theories non-scientific is their nature - that they do not generate falsifiable predictions, for example. They are not non-scientific because scientists don't accept them; rather, scientists don't accept them because they are non-scientific. Even if scientists did accept them (though this is unlikely), they would be non-scientific. These theories would remain non-scientific no matter how many people believed in them, no matter how many scientists believed in them, and no matter even if they were somehow true. Now, I have shown many reasons why I think this distinction between "conspiracy theories" and "real conspiracies" is invalid. Give me a reason it is valid. Can you establish any advantage to your definition at all? Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Are you joking? Those theories about dark matter are scientific, and they are falsifiable, and people I once worked with are working on experiments to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter as we speak. You truly know nothing about what you claim to know about. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-

The nature of "communist conspiracy" during the Cold War was also far from uncontroversial, nor was it entirely "in the open". Most Western intellectuals did not believe that the Communist Party USA was directed and funded by the Soviet Union until the opening of the KGB archives after the fall of the SU proved the matter conclusively. Nor is it true that the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are consistently used with two distinct meanings. When the power was flipping off in California, some argued that the situation was being manipulated for profit by the power companies. Dick Cheney responded that "there are always those who want to see collusion or conspiracy". He said "conspiracy", not "conspiracy theory", but he was obviously implying that the conspiracy was not there.

Indeed, Joshua Micah Marshall holds that "conspiracy theory" is now a term so flexible it is used to discredit any alternative to the official version of events. For example, before all the facts now known about the famous "16 words" in the State of the Union address were public, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said "There is a conspiracy theory out there that there was some protracted negotiation, or this was information that was in a clandestine way being forced into the speech by various factions of the administration. It's simply nonsense. " In light of what is known now, this "conspiracy theory" is one of the more favorable interpretations of the event. But see what has happened: simply to suggest that the President is lying or that members of the Administration are negotiating behind the scenes to push an agenda is now conspiracy theory. Yet such things are the commonplace material of politics.

 * That is a totally separate topic; this has to do with propaganda and semantic disputes, and deliberately using words in a misleading way to confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory as such. As it happens, I agree you on ll this. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It is the same topic. One of your arguments for your definition of conspiracy theory, and distinction between it and "real conspiracies", which I am attacking, is that this definition was simply standard usage. Even if this were true, it would not justify an invalid definition, but it is not true because it is not how the terms are actually used. This and the Cheney example are not unusual; this sort of thing is ubiquitous and is therefore part of the common use of the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". Moreover, these are high-level government officials; there is no source more "mainstream" than that. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * No, it is a totally different topic. This topic (the real Communist conspiracy in the USA) differs from bizarre conspiracy theories in many ways, including the fact that there is indisputable proof on many levels. In contrast, what historians refer to as conspiracy theories have no proof at all all, but rather exist only in the mind of beholders as a tight and complex web of allegations between unrelated facts. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Spoken like a true neo-con. Hell, you're the neo-con poster-boy. Let me guess...you also think everyone was being just a little bit rough on McCarthyism, right? That Pinochet was Chile's savior, right? It's clear what's going on here...everything that contradicts your views, you want to label a "conspiracy theory", but it bugs the hell out of you when people apply YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory" to YOUR OWN views. Hypocrite.

Let me return to what Dick Cheney said. In a sense, he was right. Those who thought that the power companies were manipulating the situation in California were indeed seeing the covert hand of design behind apparently spontaneous events - they were "conspiracy theorists". As we now know based on court investigation, they were also correct. Those who invoked Hanlon's Razor and refused to make this intellectual leap were simply wrong. But this was only ascertained because some people took the situation seriously enough to take it to court. One problem with treating conspiracy theories dismissively until they are proven is that proof very rarely falls like apples from the trees. Extensive investigation is usually necessary. Conspiracy theory has become a term of ridicule, and applying it to any theory will both discourage investigation and discredit any investigation that does occur. Indeed, the notion that conspiracy theories are conspiracies that are disbelieved by reputable scholars quickly dovetails with the notion that reputable scholars are those that disbelieve in conspiracies, creating a textbook piece of circular logic.

Think I'm kidding? RK cited Daniel Pipes. Do you know that Daniel Pipes is a highly controversial figure widely accused of fanaticism, racism, and factual distortions? Christopher Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2086844/), who is these days on the Right and has called for a war with political Islam, regards Pipes as a virulent, anti-Muslim racist who plays fast and loose with reason and fact. Is Pipes reliable on questions of fact? According to Hitchens, he has slandered Edward Said and insinuated that there were no Palestinian refugees created by the formation of Israel, a contention that most "reputable historians" would rate with denial of the Stalinist gulags. Lest you think Hitchens is alone, here is a whole set of unfavorable reviews of Pipes, largely from mainstream sources(http://www.cair-net.org/misc/people/daniel_pipes.html). And here is an analysis of one of his distortions of fact (http://www.bertramonline.com/)(he maintained that Sweden had a higher murder rate than the US and that this was because of its Muslim population. Sweden's murder rate is considerably lower than the US, and there are no statistics on how much of the murder is Muslim).

 * Daniel Pipes is slandered on a daily basis by extremists Muslims who are unhappy with the way that he brings facts to light that the Islamist movement woudl prefer kept hidden. The angry hateful way that extremist Muslims slander him is no different than the way that they give death threats to those who disagree with them. I am disappointed to see you refer to CAIR as a "mainstream" source. CAIR is an extremist Muslim group whose leaders public support terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, and who have leaders who publicly state that they would like the United States to become a Muslim nation. (All this is on the public record.)  To certain Muslims these views may be mainstream, but to most people this is considered extremist, if not dangerous. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Christopher Hitchens is by no definition a Muslim extremist. He is a secular humanist with a considerable animus towards all religion. He has been an ardent supporter of the war on terror, the war with Iraq, and, with qualifications, President Bush generally. He favors the United States imposing a more modern culture on the Middle East by force. The fact that others may have invalid criticisms of Pipes is irrelevant. I cited Hitchens. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * You misunderstand. Many liberal humanists are totally unread on this subject, and accept lock, stock and barrel the claims of CAIR and other fanatic Muslim groups that (in English) claim to be moderates.

 * Nice try, but Hitchens stated specifically that his information was first-hand. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * P.S. I would venture to guess that Slate has heard of fact checkers and would not publish scurrilous rumors without verification. Though your whole argument is based on respect for mainstream opinion, you do not hesitate to dismiss mainstream sources out-of-hand when they contradict your prejudices.

Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * This dispute isn't about Hitchens. It isn't about Pipes, either. The fact that you keep dragging him into this is a red-herring. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually someone, I rather suspect you, put Pipes into the article. If he's in the article, he's fair game for this discussion.

Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * As for CAIR, they just hosted the site. The material was from sources including Peter Rodgers, the former Australian ambassador to Israel, the Baltimore Sun, the Dow Jones News Service, The Nation, The Oregonian, The Chicago Tribune, The Vancover Sun, The Washington Times, The Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The relevance of all this is that your position, and Pipes', place great stock in "mainstream opinion". This implies a) that there is a mainstream that can be uncontroversially identified, b) that there is sound reason to consider this mainstream more reliable than the non-mainstream (otherwise, there would be no point), and c) that Daniel Pipes is uncontroversially part of the mainstream, otherwise his credibility is undermined by his own argument. Without belaboring the point, the fact that Pipes can be attacked by the likes of Hitchens for fostering hate and using propagandistic language (that "so-called" business was the cheesiest trope in all of Soviet cant. It is an attempt to cast doubt on a concept or fact without having to argue about it, simply by playing with language. Rather like defining conspiracy theories as false, come to think of it) shows that it can be disputed where the mainstream lies, whether Pipes is in it, and what the basis of its legitimacy is. But I'm not actually interested in the dispute, because I don't see where the need for any glorification of  the mainstream has been established anyway.  Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- You totally have missed the point. There is a mainstream subject called history, and historians do distinguish between historical fact, and the appealing bu ludrcrous fantasy of conspiracy theories. Your arguments to the contrary simply mean that you are very far outside the mainstream, and you hold to some extremist thoughts when it comes to historical scholarship. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Mainstream opinion "knew" that the Earth was flat, it "knew" that the Sun was our satellite, it "knew" that blacks were genetically less intelligent than whites, and it "knew" that homosexuality was a clinical disorder. Mainstream opinion can be grossly wrong. Luckily, there is a corrective for this, which is called "rationalism", whereby even the most authoritative positions can be rudely overturned. One of the fundamental precepts of rationalism is that arguments from reason trump arguments from authority. Flat trump them. Period. If this were not the case, it would be impossible for rationalism to function as a corrective to authority, which is one of its primary functions. My argument is based on reason and yours is based on authority. Even if your argument were perfectly formed and valid as an argument from authority - which it is not - it could not stand up to an attack from reason. All this business about challenging the constitution of the mainstream was superfluous to my argument - it's just when you cite Pipes as the voice of the mainstream it's hard to resist.

 * Ultimately, then, if you want to refute my view, you must resort to logic. Let me offer some hints. The argument about Darwinism I gave is of a style called "Reductio Ad Absurdum". This means I provisionally accepted your premise (that it is legitimate to place theories in fundamentally different categories depending on whether someone gives them credence) and logically followed it to an absurd conclusion (that the nature of Darwinian theory would itself change whenever popular belief about it did). There are two basic ways to refute such an argument: you can show that the conclusion is not absurd, or you can show that the reasoning that led to it is faulty. Got it? Good. OK, I'm letting go of the bike now. Ride! Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It is clear to me that you are so taken in by conspiracy theory, that there is no talking to you. Too bad. :( RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Did you know all this, RK? I would like to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that you did not. But if Pipes were *defending* conspiracy theory, would you have given his pedigree a more critical eye? This whole business of defining conspiracy theories as intrinsically false puts enormous faith in the opinions of "reputable historians". Is Pipes a reputable historian, simply because he attacks conspiracy theory? If so, are we not back to circular logic?

As I've said before, words that encapsulate a judgement about a thing into the definition of the thing itself are the hallmark of prejudicial language. "African American" and "nigger" denote the same group of people - they have the same literal meaning - but the latter term is illegitimate because it encapsulates a (negative) value judgement. If "conspiracy theory" means "false" by definition, then it is just a term of prejudice like "nigger", or, for that matter, "paranoid" or "tin-foil hat". As to the connections between conspiracy and arguments from design and totalitarianism, well, I have a lot to say on those subjects too, but I'm tired now, so I'll leave it for later. Hieronymous

 * I actually agree with you on many points, but you spend so much time attacking positions that have nothing to do with the topic, or with what I said. I disagree with you on the reliablity of Daniel Pipes, especially because what you wrote literally has nothing to do with what he wrote. On the specific topic that I am discussing, Pipe's research is very mainstream, and I can quote dozens of other authors to the same effect. I cannot being to imagine why you are dragging Muslims into this, because none of this has to do with Muslims at all. In fact, his book that I am discussing focuses on the French Revolution, World Wars I and II, and the Russian Revolution. It appears you are having such a knee-jerk reaction to his name, that you started attacking statements no one wa making! RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It has to do with his crediblity, however, and this whole glorification of mainstream opinion comes down to crediblity, doesn't it? Why else would we care about "mainstream opinion" more than any other opinion? Nothing I have said is off-topic. The bulk of it is directly to the point of whether it is legitimate to have a hard separatation between conspiracy theories that mainstream opinion accepts and those that it does not to the extent that they are characterized as two different kinds of entities and discussed separately and in different terms. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * No, you are wrong. There is a mainstream; it is the sum of historians at Western universities. History is not about opinion.

 * Now, that is an extremely naive statement. Ask five historians why the French Revolution or WWI occurred and you are likely to get five distinct answers, albeit with some common elements. History tries to answer the question "why" and answers to this question are always interpretations. Try to find a "mainstream" historian who will claim that writing history does not involve opinion. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * History is about, to the best of our ability, discovering historical facts, and explaining why things were the way they were, and why things are the way they are. Your nihilism makes any claim equally real. That's nonsense. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * My view is not nihilism and doesn't hold all claims equally valid. In fact, in the discussion of dark matter theories, I specifically distinguish between true and false theories. See, this is how you show that your views have been misunderstood or mischaracterized. Typing the word "wrong" just shows that you can type. You have to actually point out at least one difference between your position and the other person's rendition of it. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Hey, RK...your definition of what history is all "about" is almost identical to that of the Institute for Historical Review. Interesting.

Let me elaborate a bit about definitions. To me the purpose of a definition is to capture the features of a phenomenon that distinguish it from other phenomena - that give it its identity. If the definition is appropriate, it should still apply so long as the thing itself does not change. A definition that does not do this fails the test of identity; the identity of the thing has not changed, yet the definition no longer fits. This tells me that the definition has failed to capture the identity of the thing and has instead captured irrelevancies.

If a conspiracy theory is held by definition to be false, ridiculous, or unproveable, it should retain these features regardless of events external to the theory itself. Yet RK wants to say that conspiracy theories are false or unproveable (two different things, which he conflates) until verified, at which point they are no longer conspiracy theories, but geniune conspiracies. Somehow, the conspiracy theory has not changed, yet its definition has. This indicates a very poor definition.

 * You have totally misunderstood everything I wrote. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll tell you what. I'll summarize your position in my own words. If I get it wrong, please explain my mistake. If I get it right, please stop claiming that I don't understand you.

 * Your position is that there are genuine conspiracies in the world, and that there is a distinct entity called "conspiracy theories". Genuine conspiracies are regarded as true or at least plausible by the mainstream, however defined. Initially, you defined conspiracy theories as belief in non-existent conspiracies, that is to say, as false beliefs. When someone pointed out that this is not NPOV, you revised the definition of conspiracy theory to be belief in conspiracies held by mainstream thought to be false or implausible. If, because of new evidence or some other reason, mainstream thinking changes and now holds that a particular conspiracy theory has become true or plausible, it is no longer a conspiracy theory, but a genuine conspiracy. You hold, further, that these definitions of the terms reflect how the terms are conventionally used in political discourse and therefore are not the expression of a point-of-view, but simply something that is true by definition. Right?

 * Sigh. Wrong. You still are missing my point. RK

 * Successfully typing the word "Wrong" is not an argument - not even when preambled by an Al-Gore-style ostentatious sigh. You have to actually show how what I said differs from your position. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But if you don't admit that there really is a mainstream historical consensus that rejects the reality of wacko conspiracy theories, then I do not see how you can possibly discuss this subject with anyone at all. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * In fact, I discuss this subject with people all the time, both those sympathetic to my views and those not. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 3


text:
Talk:Analog watch

It's the display, not the technology
The designation of analog or digital refers to the design of the dial (or readout if you like), not to the technology used to drive it.

Early (and modern) quartz watches used digital circuitry to step down the 32,768 Hz crystal vibration to the 1 Hz signal used to step the second hand, but were never called "digital watches." The watch I am wearing is called an analog watch, although I bought it recently and I am sure that all the circuitry within it is digital.

During the period of 1960 to 1980, a reasonably popular form of household clock, often found in clock radios, used a traditional synchronous clock motor and an all-mechanical system of linkages to flip sets of page-like flaps; one set, bearing the numbers from 1 to 12, indicated the hour, and another, numbered from 00 to 59, the minute. Every minute a flap would fall with a slight audible click. These clocks were invariably known as "digital clocks." Dpbsmith 19:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well then I guess I'm mistaken. Sorry! KirbyMeister 03:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If KirbyMeister = 24.184.225.245, nice work on the Stone soup article. Dpbsmith 03:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Analog watch


text:
St Germans, Cornwall

St Germans (Lannaled) is a village and civil parish in east Cornwall, England, United Kingdom. It stands on the River Tiddy, just upstream of where that river joins the River Lynher; the water way from St Germans to the Hamoaze is also known as St Germans River. It takes its name from the St. German's Priory, generally associated with St Germanus, although the church may have been associated initially with a local saint, who was gradually replaced by the 14th century. This Norman church is adjacent to the Port Eliot estate of the present Earl of St Germans.

The other villages in the historic parish were Tideford, Hessenford, Narkurs, Polbathic, and Bethany, but new ecclesiastical parishes were established in 1834 (St Anne's Church, Hessenford) and 1852 (Tideford). In 1997 part of the St Germans parish was made into Deviock parish. The area of the civil parish is 10151 acre, and it has a population of 1,427, increasing to 1,453 at the 2011 census. An electoral ward with the name St Germans also exists. The population at the 2011 census was 4,301.

Parliamentary borough
The village was one of the rotten boroughs, electing two members to the unreformed House of Commons until the Reform Act 1832. As in many of the Cornish rotten boroughs, the franchise in St Germans was restricted to a tiny number of "freemen", rather than to all residents, but even they were not numerous—by the time of the Reform Bill, the male population of the borough was only 247. However, the previous census had shown that the whole parish (of which the borough made up only a fraction) had a population of 2,404, and the initial proposal was that St Germans should lose only one of its two MPs; but the Whig government subsequently decided that the availability of sufficient population in a surrounding parish should not save a borough from disfranchisement unless a substantial part of that population was already within the borough boundaries, amending the bill's schedules so as to extinguish both of the St Germans MPs. The Tory opposition attacked the decision as politically motivated (St Germans was a Tory borough), and the vote in the Commons was one of the narrowest in the entire Reform Bill debates.

The seal of the borough of St Germans was St German seated on a throne, with the legend "S. Prepositure Sci Germani in laya".

Landmarks
There is a stone cross at Carracawn dedicated to the members of the parish who died in the First and Second World Wars.

See of St Germans
St Germans was originally the seat of the Bishop of Cornwall before the see was combined with that of Crediton in 1042. Today the Bishop of Truro's assistant (suffragan) bishop is known as the Bishop of St Germans in acknowledgement of this, although he has no specific links with the village. The first of these bishops was appointed in 1905. Under its Latin name of Sanctus Germanus, the see is included in the Catholic Church's list of titular sees. The adjectival form of the name of the see is Cornubiensis, meaning "Cornish" or "of Cornwall".

John of Cornwall
John of Cornwall, in Latin Johannes Cornubiensis or Johannes de Sancto Germano, was a Christian scholar and teacher, who was living in Paris about 1176. Little is known of his life. From his names, it is surmised that he was a native of St Germans.

Almshouses
Sir William Moyle's Almshouses, also known as the Galleries, date from 1583. They are unusual in that they consisted of six one-room apartments on the ground floor and a further six on the first floor. The upper rooms open onto a gallery along the front of the range, which is reached by stairs at either end. The almshouses were converted into four separate dwellings in the 20th century; it is a Grade II* listed building.

Fishing quay, railway station and viaduct
It was originally a busy fishing village in the 19th century. The St Germans Quay was busy in the last century with cargoes of timber, coal and limestone and materials for the building of the railway that was to bring about the demise of river trade. Until the last war the trade in roadstone continued. Now St Germans Quay is home to the village sailing club: the Quay Sailing Club (QSC). The sailing club is now well established and plays a part in the life of the village.

St Germans railway station was opened on 4 May 1859 at the west end of St Germans viaduct, 106 feet above the quay. It is notable for having the best-preserved Cornwall Railway station buildings.

May Fair
There are references in St Germans to a fair in 1284, as well as a second fair on Lammas Day. A rental of Landrake Manor made in 1652 says 'there was a Fayre keept yeerely within the Towne of St Germans upon the Last Tursday in Maye' but notes that the fair has decayed and ended under Cromwell's government. However the fair was revived shortly after the Restoration, possibly due to the similarly timed Oak Apple Day to celebrate the Restoration, and there are multiple references to it from then on. Indeed, it is listed annually in local newspapers until the late 1950s, with the date of the fair held on the nearest possible day to 28 May.

Robert Hunt in Popular Romances of the West of England describes a two-day festival, that took place on the 28th and 29 May. On 28 May, a 'mock mayor' was chosen 'with many formalities, remarkable only for their rude and rough nature', and cattle were brought into the village for the fair. On the 29th the mock mayor, who had been 'supping too freely of the fair ale', was pulled around on a cart to claim his pretend jurisdiction. On this day, anyone entering the village without the leaf or branch of an oak leaf in his hat was thrown in the trough of water fed by a stream on Nut Tree Hill.

On 27 May 2012, the fair was revived. A new "mock mayor" was elected, and a symbolic May tree was paraded through the village. This is a wooden, decorated garland that is symbolic of a walnut nut tree that once stood on the green at the top of present-day Old Quay lane. It was felled between 1865 and 1870, and it was rumoured the wood was used to build cabinets in Port Eliot. Recently a small walnut wood cabinet was re-discovered in church storage and shown to the community during the 2018 May Tree Fair.

Cricket
In the late 19th Century the Earl of St Germans had a cricket ground purposely built about a mile West of St Germans along the B3249. The sloping land was excavated and tree trunks were laid as a base before being covered with top soil to give a flat playing surfaces thus making it one of the first purpose built cricket grounds in the county. St Germans Cricket Club played on the ground until folding in the early 1970s. From 1975 the ground has been the home ground of Tideford Cricket Club who re-located from a site they had been using near Trerulefoot. The views from the ground stretch out to the East as far as Maker Church (7 miles away) and several miles to the South across the valley to the Plymouth – Penzance railway line. To the North the ground is bordered by woods. Whilst the ground is very picturesque the facilities are basic with no mains electricity available (quoted £15K for installation in the 1990s). Tideford Cricket Club runs 2 adult teams (Cornwall Cricket League) and several junior age group teams (West Devon Youth League).

Cornish wrestling
Cornish wrestling tournaments, for prizes, have been held in St Germans.

Twinning
St Germans is twinned with Plouguerneau (Plougerne) in Brittany, France.

Notable people

 * Robert Scawen, English politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1640 and 1670. He supported the Parliamentary cause in the English Civil War.
 * William Scawen, politician and key figure in Cornish-language preservation.
 * Sir John Eliot, key Parliamentarian figure in the build-up to the Personal Rule of Charles I. Died in the Tower of London. Of the local Eliot family.
 * Henry Furneaux, British classical scholar.

title: St Germans, Cornwall


text:
Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 4

As for the argument from design, yes, I think this is the salient feature of conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theorist observes patterns in the sense-data of the world and infers that these reveal the work of some designing intelligence, some individual or group "mind", whose presence is not otherwise obvious. Is this a valid inference?

Obviously, in some cases, it is not, as conspiracy opponents never seem to tire of pointing out. Yes, people sometimes see ice cream cones in clouds. If they think someone is shaping the clouds to look like ice cream cones, they are mistaken. A pattern can be the result of accident. Is it ever valid to infer the presence of a mind on the basis of patterns in sense-data? One of the great parlor games in philosophy is "try to refute solipsism". Solipsism is the belief that your mind is the only one in the universe; the rest of the world is just some kind of phantasm of your mind. I'm not going to get into whether this is refutable (Descartes says no, Witgenstein says yes), but do you in fact believe it and, if not, why not? Since you are bothering to read this, I assume you believe that some mind not your own shaped these words to some end. All the universe has ever given you is sense-data. By examining that sense-data, you found patterns in it and, sometime in infancy, concluded that the world was full of minds other than your own. Never have you had direct experience of the existence of such "minds" - they just seem to explain the sense-data better than assuming that all the behavior of these apparent "other people" is just random and purposeless.

If you accept that this is a valid methodology, then you have no objection in principle to what the conspiracy theorist does; it is merely a question of whether the inference is valid in a particular case. If this situation seems far removed from the political world that conspiracy theorists address - well, so are ice cream cones in clouds. Either you accept the principle as valid (without necessarily accepting all applications of it), or you don't, and, in the latter case, I think you have no choice but solipsism. Hieronymous 04:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Interesting. You have a solipsist position which rejects logical thought and historical scholarship, and demands that we accept all claims as equally valid, yet you attack others as solipsist?

 * My position is that a person's opinions about a thing are not an attribute of the thing itself and therefore do not belong in its definition. This directly affirms the independence of the outside world from the person's mind and is therefore an anti-Solipsist position. There: another example of how to show that your position has been mischaracterized. If you hope someday to be able to deploy logical thought yourself, you might practice with this kind of problem. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are not only out of the mainstream, but you are so deeply emmeshed in your anti-mainstream stance that you have slipped out of anything close to reality. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, now I get it! RK - the Red Knight. Wasn't the Red Knight that torso in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that kept insisting it was winning the fight even after all its limbs were redistributed about the landscape? Have I been mistaking a Monty Python imitation for actual arguments?

Hieronymous no, that was the Black ''Knight. Kwantus =)''

HeeHee! I like how generally considered is invoked as a kind of credibility. It is also "generally considered" that Columbus was trying to prove thw world is round and that raindrops are pear-shaped, but they're both still false. Kwantus (PS everyone "knows" vaccine prevents smallpox, Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack, and HIV causes AIDS, too…but the first has been discredited for centuries, Stinnet recently put paid to the second, and I think Duesberg, Rasnick, several "HIV" patietns, et al are crippling the latter.)

 * Nonsense. It was never generally considered that Columbus was trying to prove that the world is round. That is only a myth spread by people who believe in conspiracy theories, to justify their belief in theories that have absolutely no basis in historical fact. RK

 * Well then, you live someplace more enlightened than Northa America, to think that.[the "world is round" was never generally considered]. =p - Kwantus

 * Heehee - i wonder which is the bigger conspiracy theory, that Columbus was trying to prove the world was round or that he was rescuing a bunch of important Jews from Torquemada's edict =) - Kwantus

Mainstream historians point out that there is a fundamental difference between actual conspiracies that are regarded as factual, or at least as highly possible, and those conspiracy theories which are known or believed to be false, if not inane. Perhaps it is my fault for not writing a section on this topic; I plan to do so this week. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please stop bringing up the long discredit rebuttal argument "Well, no one can prove a conspiracy theory false, so who is to say it is false." Anyone can make up an infinite number of inane, complicated and bizarre conspiracy theories, all of which are false, and none of which can be proven false. You misunderstand the very process of history, and the nature of knowledge, if you miss this critical point. I can make up a conspiracy theory involving you, if I so choose. And could any historians disprove it? Nope. So should we regard it as legitimate? Nope. Not unless you want to throw critical thinking right out the window. We in history and science can never accept that a conspiracy theory is true unless there is a substantial amount of proof. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it would be more fair to call what you are describing "superstition" rather than "conspiracy theory". From the American Heritage Dictionary - superstition. n. 1. A belief that some action or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. 2. Any belief, practice, or rite unreasoningly upheld by faith in magic, chance, or dogma. 3. a. Fearful or abject dependence upon such beliefs. b. Idolatry. Definitions 1 and 2 seem to fit what you are describing quite nicely.  I disagree that a conspiracy theory cannot be proven true or false. Conspiracy theories can be proven true or false, but there is insufficient data to do so. Many conspiracy theories are based on circumstantial evidence, and there is not enough "hard" evidence to take it from the "theory" stage to a universally-acknowledged "truth" (or falsehood). Maybe there would be less confusion if it was called "conspiracy hypothesis" instead of "conspiracy theory".Conspiracy theory has gotten a bad rap largely because some people are unable or unwilling to make a distinction between superstition and theory. There is nothing inherently incompatible between conspiracy research and the scientific method. While some conspiracy theories are rather far-fetched and are not well substantiated, others are very plausible and do explain facts which are difficult to account for otherwise. Some conspiracy theories tend to explain the facts better than the "official" accounts. In some cases, I don't see a difference between what an "investigative journalist" does and the work of a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracies have been known to happen, and it's quite rare that those involved have come out voluntarily to spill the beans. Remember the Maine! -- Greta, 27 Oct 2003

hm. I went looking for Northwoods on Google and this was the only WP page that mentioned it; I added a link to a IMO reputable copy of the plan before noticing the mention of plan had been zapped. IMO Northwoods should be mentioned as a CT with a little more foundation than some... Kwantus
 * I originally zapped it from here because it's no longer a theory, having been declassified and verified. But I think it could work here as a "see also." - Hephaestos 17:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * A search on Google for "northwoods wikipedia" shows Operation Northwoods as the first result. You could add a link to the Wikipedia article to the section Conspiracy theory.—Eloquence 17:55, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * I be darned - Google("site:wikipedia.com northwoods") was behind on that one. Usu it's WP search that i find omittive =\ - Kwantus

No mention of Pearl Harbor, either (acc to Ctrl-F ;^). Where should it go, given Stinnett's body of declassified evidence? --Kwantus

Asking "Who benefited from this death?" after an assassination is not the sole province of conspiracy theorists; it is a standard investigative question posed by police after any homicide, and certainly the public in general would be interested in asking it after an assassination about which there was any doubt (and, as it can certainly be argued by some philosophers that nothing is knowable, at least beyond a certain point...). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- As a newcomer to this page, the section 'Real conspiracies vs ct' is incredibly unclear and repetative. I suspect this is to do with editorial disputes, and don't want to boldly edit, but was the definition ever agreed on? If so this could do with a re-write.2toise 19:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The subject matter itself makes the trap of POV almost inevitable. The least that could be said is to gang warily here, but perhaps major problems are unavoidable.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I tried a reworking of it, but forgot to log in when I posted it, still, it was me ;) Let me know what you think, revert it if it offends... 2toise 04:00, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

-

I wonder about the listing of celebrities as "assassinations" and "deaths."

For example, why is John Lennon listed as not assassinated, while John Paul 1 is listed as assassinated? Does "assassinated" not mean "killed by homocide while famous?"

-

Could someone who is preferably not militantly pro-Israel explain what is meant by the term "anti-semitic" in the context of this article? -- Greta, 28 Oct 2003

From the article: "Many African-Americans in the US believe that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was invented..." Is this really a commonly held belief? Is it accurate to say "many" in this case? --Minesweeper 10:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, acording to a 1995 report, "A survey of about 1,000 black church members found 35 percent believed the AIDS conspiracy theory and another 30 percent would not rule it out." (Yikes!) A 1990 survey found that 30% of Blacks in New York City believed that AIDS was created to wipe out blacks. -- Khym Chanur 05:22, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I have worked in New York City, and a great number of African-Americans I have worked with are convinced that white American scientists deliberately created AIDS as a weapon against blacks. A few believe that AIDs was created by "the Jews". In inner city areas, this (sadly) is a fairly respectable position to have, and no one is ostracized for saying such things aloud. RK 16:54, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm moving some of this to List of alleged conspiracy theories.2toise 14:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The following apologetics for belief in conspiracy theory have been removed. Explanations follow: RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * The text read There will inevitably be heated debate between those proponents of the theory, who consider it apparent that a conspiracy is afoot, and those skeptics who claim that stringing together what appear to them to be isolated and unconnected events to find sinister meaning is irrational. The waters are muddied by the fact that powerful groups or individuals may have an interest in trying to discredit those who accuse them of real or imagined crimes. The label of "conspiracy theory" has been used to mock or denigrate social and political dissent, for instance when a powerful public figure is accused of corruption.

 * Yes, we all know that paranoid people truly believe that "powerful groups or individuals may have an interest in trying to discredit those who accuse them of real or imagined crimes" Of course.  Conspiracists (people who believe in multiple conspiracy theories) are certain that some evil government or organization is out to get them, is out to hide the truth, and is creating an attack on "conspiracy theory" in order to hide the facts!  So?  Instead of discussing this phenomenon impartially, the author of this paragraph writes as if he is out to defend the believers from the manipulations of these evil groups!  This is not an impartial discussion; this is conspiracist advocacy. RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * The text stated Conspiracy theorists are sometimes accused of being paranoid, at least in a metaphorical sense, and are sometimes compared to the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. In contrast, it is also true that the diagnosis of schizophrenia has been used as a means of silencing political dissent, for example in the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States. (See: anti-psychiatry; Francis Farmer; lobotomy; Phil Russell, Thomas Szasz).

 * This has nothing to do with the topic. Communist and facists governments murdered people they disagreed with, and sent others to mental institutions. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. I am disturbed by the way this is being used to imply that the beliefs of some conspiracists may in fact be real and justifiable. The logic is flawed. RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * The text stated Whether particular theories of power and causal attribution fall within the category of conspiracy theories or not depends greatly on one's point of view, and is also affected by the emergence of evidence to support the theory. Some theories which, when first presented, appeared to most people to be wildly improbable, were later adopted as orthodoxy.

 * This totally missed the point. The article already states, in great detail, that some conspiracy theories turned out to be true, and it explains the difference between actual history and conspiracism. This is just a rewrite of the more detailed material, but with a pro-conspiracist bias. It is innuendo used to cast doubt and to make conspiracy theories seem reasonable. Not NPOV. RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi there RK - I tried to edit this to get it to read a little better, and felt I had to put back some of the things you edited out - I don't think that the term 'conspiracy theory' can have a meaning that is not POV. As I think we all agree:

I am not defending any particular theory, simply saying that there is no definition of the term that is not inherently POV. The evidence for any given theory (whether it is global warming or alien abduction) should stand on its own and be judged on its merits, we don't need to apply our own judgements about whether the theory is lunatic or the proponent insane.2toise 06:24, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) The term is exclusively used to negatively describe ideas that people disagree with.
 * 2) It (and much harsher tactics) have been used by goverments to silence dissent.
 * 3) Powerful political interests have often called ideas that threated them 'conspiracy theories' see the debate on 'global warming', 'tobacco' or 'genetically modified foods' for example. Theories of 'global warming' are particularly good because the evidence is complex and difficult to form a watertight case with - proponents are accused of being conspiracy theories by industry funded groups.
 * 4) On many occasions ideas that were called conspiracy theories have turned out to be correct.

title: Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 4