text:
The Dukes of Hazzard (film)

The Dukes of Hazzard is a 2005 American action comedy film loosely based on the television series of the same name. The film was directed by Jay Chandrasekhar and released on August 5, 2005, by Warner Bros. Pictures. As in the television series, the film depicts the adventures of cousins Bo, Luke, and Daisy, and their Uncle Jesse, as they outfox crooked Hazzard County Commissioner Boss Hogg and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane.

The film was the acting debut of pop singer Jessica Simpson. While financially successful with an opening debut of 30 million and a worldwide gross of $109.8 million, the film met with generally negative reviews from critics. The film was followed by a direct-to-video prequel titled The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning (2007).

Plot
Cousins Bo, Luke, and Daisy Duke run a moonshine business for their Uncle Jesse in Hazzard County, Georgia. The cousins' primary mode of transportation is an orange 1969 Dodge Charger that the boys affectionately refer to as the "General Lee". Along the way, the family is tormented by corrupt Hazzard County Commissioner Jefferson Davis Hogg, widely known as "Boss Hogg", and his willing but dimwitted henchman, Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane.

After Rosco has the General Lee vandalized after Bo and Luke's attempt to run away from a daughter of one of their many moonshine customers, Billy Prickett, a famous stock-car driver, enters Hazzard to participate in the rally. Meanwhile, Rosco plants a fake moonshine still in Uncle Jesse's barn and seizes the Duke property in the interest of eminent domain for Boss Hogg, forcing the family to temporarily reside with neighbor Pauline. She informs the Dukes that Rosco seized another farm on charges, so Bo and Luke investigate a local construction site and find their farm and neighboring farms marked on a map. They also discover a safe which they believe contains information that Boss Hogg wants to keep secret, unable to get the safe open they drag it to Sheev's. With his help they blow open the safe and discover geologic core samples but are unsure on what the samples are. Meanwhile, Cooter Davenport turns the General Lee into a hot rod in hopes of finally receiving payment for all the work he has done for the boys in the past if they win the race.

The Dukes go to Atlanta to visit a local university geology lab, meeting with Katie-Lynn Johnson, a Hazzard county girl. They discover Boss Hogg's intentions of turning the county into a strip coal mine. However, before they can return to Hazzard country, they are arrested. Boss Hogg visits their prison cell, where he informs the Dukes that the vote on Hogg's proposition is at the same time as the rally, with Billy Prickett providing an distraction. During a transfer from detainment, Daisy helps the boys escape from the patrol car, and they speed home to try to inform the townsfolk, escaping the Atlanta Police, and the Georgia State Patrol.

Upon returning home, the Dukes discover that Boss Hogg and Rosco had taken Uncle Jesse and Pauline hostage. The two race to the farmhouse to cause a distraction to the waiting Hazzard County Sheriff's deputies and Georgia State Troopers, while Daisy and Cooter rescue Jesse and Pauline. Meanwhile, the college girls head to the rally with Sheev to inform the townsfolk about the vote on the strip-mining ordinance, however; because Sheev is a known conspiracy theorist, no one listens to them. Bo leaves for the rally while Luke and Jesse team up to foil the county and state police. Upon crossing the finish line first before Billy, the two then continue racing across town, leading the townsfolk to the courthouse, where the proposal is rejected.

Boss Hogg attempt's to have the boys locked up but Daisy takes advantage of the governor of Georgia's presence and TV cameras to convince him to pardoning them. The final scene shows a cook-out at the Dukes' house where the Dukes and the townspeople celebrate.

Cast

 * Johnny Knoxville as Luke Duke
 * Seann William Scott as Bo Duke
 * Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke
 * Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg
 * Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse Duke
 * David Koechner as Cooter Davenport
 * M. C. Gainey as Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane
 * Michael Weston as Deputy Enos Strate
 * Lynda Carter as Pauline Powers
 * James Roday Rodriguez as Billy Prickett
 * Kevin Heffernan as Derek "Sheev" Sheevington
 * Nikki Griffin as Katie-Lynn Johnson
 * Jacqui Maxwell as Annette
 * Alice Greczyn as Laurie Pullman
 * Junior Brown as The Balladeer (narrator)
 * Joe Don Baker as Governor Jim Applewhite
 * Barry Corbin as Bill Pullman
 * Andrew Prine as Angry Man
 * Brendan Schetter as Random Stoner
 * Michael Roof as Dil Driscoll

Cameos
All five members of the comedy film troupe Broken Lizard appear in the film, four as cameos and Kevin Heffernan in a speaking role as Sheev.
 * Broken Lizard cameos
 * Steve Lemme appears as Bill Pullman's son Jimmy, in a car chase scene in which he accidentally shoots the inside of his father's truck.
 * Jay Chandrasekhar and Erik Stolhanske reprise their roles as Ramathorn and Rabbit from the Broken Lizard comedy Super Troopers. The characters are now campus police officers, who warn the Duke boys for driving too slowly.
 * Paul Soter appears as TV newsman Rick Shakely reporting from the Hazzard Road Rally.
 * Charlie Finn appears as Royce Wilson, a dimwitted geology student who assists the Duke boys with the coal samples.

 * Other cameos:
 * Indy-car driver A. J. Foyt IV appears as himself during the bar-fight.
 * Rip Taylor appears in the final bloopers roll, interrupting the bedroom scene with Luke and the college girls.

Stunts
Knoxville said he was initially reluctant to take on the role, but was persuaded by script changes and the presence of Dan Bradley as stunt coordinator and second unit for the car chase scenes. Knoxville praised him, saying, "everyone in Hollywood wants Dan Bradley to shoot their car stuff".

Locations
Principal photography for the film began on November 15, 2004, before wrapping up the following February. The majority of the film was shot in and around Clinton & French Settlement, Louisiana. The Boar's nest was Moonlight Inn located in French Settlement, LA. The street scenes are set in Atlanta, but filmed in the New Orleans Central Business District, and the university scenes were shot on the campus of Louisiana State University.

Box office
The film was number one at the box office its opening weekend and grossed $30.7 million on 3,785 screens. It also had an adjusted-dollar rank of number 24 all-time for August releases. The film eventually collected $109.8 million worldwide, although it was much less successful financially outside the United States.

Critical reception
On Rotten Tomatoes, 14% of 168 reviews were positive. The website's consensus called the film "A dumb, goofy, and vacuous adaptation of a TV show where plot is simply an excuse to string together the car chases." On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 33% based on 36 reviews, indicating "Generally unfavorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a grade "B+" on scale of A to F. Longtime fans of the original Dukes of Hazzard series were generally disappointed by the film.

Roger Ebert gave the film one star, calling it a "lame-brained, outdated wheeze" and wondered if Burt Reynolds' part in the film is "karma-wise... the second half of what Smokey and the Bandit was the first half of". Ebert also named it the second-worst film of the year and Richard Roeper named it the worst film of 2005. Ebert also included the film on his most hated list.

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave it B+ grade and wrote: "It's trash, all right, but perfectly skewed trash -- a comedy that knows just how smart to be about just how dumb it is."

Awards
At the 26th Golden Raspberry Awards, the film received seven nominations, but did not win any.
 * Worst Picture - lost to Dirty Love
 * Worst Director (Jay Chandrasekhar) - lost to John Mallory Asher for Dirty Love
 * Worst Screenplay (John O'Brien) - lost to Jenny McCarthy for Dirty Love
 * Worst Supporting Actor (Burt Reynolds) - lost to Hayden Christensen in Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
 * Worst Supporting Actress (Jessica Simpson) - lost to Paris Hilton in House of Wax
 * Worst Screen Couple (Jessica Simpson and her Daisy Dukes) - lost to Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell in Bewitched
 * Worst Remake or Sequel - lost to Son of the Mask

At the People's Choice Awards, Simpson won the "Favorite Song from a Movie" award for her cover of Nancy Sinatra's "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'".

The film was nominated for two MTV Movie Awards, including Best On-Screen Team (Johnny Knoxville, Seann William Scott, and Jessica Simpson), and Sexiest Performance (Jessica Simpson).

Simpson won the Choice Breakout Female award for her role in the film at the Teen Choice Awards.

Controversies
Before the release of this film, Warner Bros. reportedly paid $17.5 million to the producer of Moonrunners, the movie that inspired the television series. This was soon followed by a claim from screenwriter Gy Waldron. The Hollywood Reporter reported that James Best, who portrayed Rosco P. Coltrane in the original series, filed suit in late July 2011 over royalties he was contracted to receive over spinoffs that "used his identity".

Ben Jones, who played Cooter Davenport in the original series, criticized the film for its emphasis on sexual content, suggesting that the original series was more family-oriented and not as sexualized. He called for fans of the television series to boycott the film "unless they clean it up before the August 5th release date."

Some have countered that the original series also contained sexual themes, primarily Catherine Bach's (Daisy Duke) much-displayed "short shorts" (which have become so ubiquitous in American culture that skimpy blue jean cutoff shorts are now often simply called "Daisy Dukes"). In a film review, a New York Daily News entertainment columnist said the movie's sex humor is "cruder" than the TV series, but that it is "nearly identical to the TV series in... its ogling of the posterior of cousin Daisy Duke."

Although initially he commented that he enjoyed the new style of relationship between the movie versions of Bo and Luke, John Schneider, who played Bo Duke in the original series, was later asked if he saw the film and said: "My gosh... it was terrible! It wasn't Dukes. It was true to whatever it was; I just don't know what that was!"

John Schneider has said that when he arrived at the premiere, Johnny Knoxville came up to him and apologised for how bad the film was. Schneider has also questioned why TV channels show the film but are not prepared to rerun the original series.

Differences from source material

 * In the series, Bo and Luke Duke were on probation, and Jesse had quit moonshining to keep them out of prison. A frequent obstacle as the result of their probation was their inability to leave Hazzard County without the consent of Boss Hogg. In the film, the Dukes are still actively producing and distributing moonshine, and Bo and Luke freely travel to Atlanta.
 * Boss Hogg and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane are portrayed as far more serious and sinister than their TV counterparts. In the series, Hogg was very opposed to violence and would often abandon schemes if any characters were put in harm's way. In the film, Hogg has Jesse and Pauline (an original character) held hostage in one scene, and pays for an annoying prisoner to be knocked unconscious in another.
 * When the series portrayed the origins of the General Lee, the car immediately showcased its iconic design. In the opening of the film, the design of the General is rather different, with a crudely-styled 01 on the doors and missing the Confederate flag and name above the windows. When Cooter restores the General after it is vandalized by Boss Hogg's associates, the classic design is applied.
 * In most of the series, the Hazzard County Police Department is limited to Sheriff Coltrane and one deputy. (Enos or Cletus) In the film, the police department seems to be rather extensive for a small town.
 * In the series, Luke was a former Sergeant of the U.S. Marine Corps. This is not mentioned in the film. Contrarily, in the film, Jesse is introduced as a Korean War veteran, though the series did not portray him as a veteran.

Soundtrack
Jessica Simpson recorded her own version of "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'" (and added her own lyrics) for the soundtrack to the film. Performed from the point of view of her character in the movie, Simpson's cover was co-produced by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, and was released as the soundtrack's first single in 2005. It became Simpson's fifth top-20 single in the United States and its music video drew some controversy because of its sexual imagery. Both the original Ram Jam version of "Black Betty", and the Sylvia Massy produced remake by Spiderbait appear in the film. AC/DC's "If You Want Blood (You've Got It)" and "Shoot to Thrill" are also played.

Unrated cut
An unrated cut restored changes made to get a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. The unrated cut was released on DVD, and included rated and unrated bonus features, including unrated deleted scenes and blooper scenes. This edition was not rated by the MPAA, and contained additional nudity, language, and violent driving stunts.

Prequel
A prequel to the film, titled The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning, was released to television on March 4, 2007, and released to DVD on March 13, 2007.

title: The Dukes of Hazzard (film)


text:
Leftfoot

Leftfoot is a musical event. It started life in Birmingham's Medicine Bar and the Bulls Head Public House in the suburb of Moseley in the late 1990s.

Primarily an acid jazz night, many other major music styles such as hip hop, funk and dub are included.

The residents and organisers are DJ Dick (originally from the Rum Runner nightclub and Rockers Hi-Fi) and Adam Regan.

Leftfoot has featured on BBC Radio 1 several times and at other events such as the Cheltenham International Jazz Festival.

Acts that have performed for Leftfoot include Gilles Peterson, Mr Scruff, DJ Patife, Cleveland Watkiss, Keb Darge, Roots Manuva, Bonobo and Ninja Tune records.

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

title: Leftfoot


text:
Category:Computer scientists

This category of Computer scientists consists of people who do research in the field of computer science: university professors, researchers employed by industry research laboratories, and independent researchers.

title: Category:Computer scientists


text:
Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy

The Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy is awarded annually by the American Astronomical Society to a young (less than age 36) astronomer for outstanding achievement in observational astronomical research. The prize is named after Newton Lacy Pierce, an American astronomer.

Pierce Prize winners
Source: AAS

 * 1974 Edwin M. Kellogg
 * 1975 Eric Becklin
 * 1976 James Roger Angel
 * 1977 Donald N.B. Hall
 * 1978 James M. Moran, Jr.
 * 1979 D. Harper
 * 1980 Jack Baldwin
 * 1981 Bruce Margon
 * 1982 Marc Davis
 * 1983 Alan Dressler
 * 1984 Marc Aaronson, Jeremy Mould
 * 1985 Richard G. Kron
 * 1986 Reinhard Genzel
 * 1987 Donald E. Winget
 * 1988 Sallie L. Baliunas
 * 1989 Harriet Dinerstein
 * 1990 Kristen Sellgren
 * 1991 Kenneth G. Libbrecht
 * 1992 Alexei Filippenko
 * 1993 Arlin P.S. Crotts
 * 1994 No award
 * 1995 Andrew McWilliam
 * 1996 Michael Strauss
 * 1997 Alyssa A. Goodman
 * 1998 Andrea Ghez
 * 1999 Dennis F. Zaritsky
 * 2000 Kirpal Nandra
 * 2001 Kenneth R. Sembach
 * 2002 Amy Barger
 * 2003 Xiaohui Fan
 * 2004 Niel Brandt
 * 2005 Andrew Blain
 * 2006 Bryan Gaensler
 * 2007 No award
 * 2008 Lisa Kewley
 * 2009 Joshua Bloom
 * 2010 Tommaso Treu
 * 2011 Gaspar Bakos
 * 2012 John A. Johnson
 * 2013 Jason Kalirai
 * 2014 Nadia L. Zakamska
 * 2015 Heather A. Knutson
 * 2016 Karin Öberg
 * 2017 Evan Kirby
 * 2018 Caitlin Casey
 * 2019 Daniel R. Weisz
 * 2020 Emily Levesque
 * 2021 Courtney Dressing
 * 2022 Erin Kara
 * 2023 Renee Ludlam

title: Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy


text:
Michael Parenti

Michael John Parenti (born September 30, 1933) is an American political scientist, academic historian and cultural critic who writes on scholarly and popular subjects. He has taught at universities as well as run for political office. Parenti is well known for his Marxist writings and lectures, and is an intellectual of the American Left.

Education and personal life
Michael Parenti was raised by an Italian-American working-class family in the East Harlem neighborhood of New York City. After graduating from high school, Parenti worked for several years. Upon returning to school, he received a BA from the City College of New York, an MA from Brown University and a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. In recent decades, he has made his home in Berkeley, California. He is the father of Christian Parenti, an academic, author and journalist.

Career
After receiving his doctorate, Parenti taught political and social science at various institutions of higher learning, including the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UI). In May 1970 while he was an associate professor at UI, he participated in a rally protesting the recent Kent State shootings and ongoing Vietnam War. At the rally he was clubbed by state troopers and then held in a jail cell for two days. He was charged with aggravated battery (of a state trooper), disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. After being released on bond, he started a new teaching job at the University of Vermont (UVM) in September. The next month he returned to Illinois to stand trial before a judge. Despite multiple witnesses exonerating Parenti, the judge found him guilty on all three counts. Here's how he describes what happened next: "In June 1971 I returned to Illinois for sentencing. Because I was already employed outside the state and because a host of academic lights from around the country had sent in appeals on my behalf, I was saved from having to do time. Instead, I was given two years probation, a fine, and ordered to pay court costs."

This incident effectively ended Parenti's career as a professor. In December 1971, after his UVM department voted unanimously to renew his teaching contract, the UVM board of trustees and conservative state legislators intervened and voted to not renew, citing Parenti's "unprofessional conduct." The battle over his continued presence on the UVM faculty lasted into early 1972, but ultimately he lost his position there.

In subsequent years, he was unable to obtain another non-temporary teaching job. He learned from sympathetic associates at the colleges he applied to that he was being rejected for his leftist views and political activism. He chronicles this period of his life in the essay, "Struggles in Academe: A Personal Account", published in Dirty Truths. He discusses the broader question of political orthodoxy in U.S. higher education in "The Empire in Academia" chapter of his 1995 book, Against Empire. Because he couldn't earn a steady livelihood as a professor, Parenti began to devote himself full-time to writing, public speaking, and politics.

In 1974, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in Vermont as the candidate of the democratic socialist Liberty Union Party; he finished in third place with 7.1% of the vote. During his years in Vermont, Parenti became good friends with Bernie Sanders. However, the two men later split over Sanders' support for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

In the 1980s, Parenti was a visiting fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. In 2003, the Caucus for a New Political Science gave him a Career Achievement Award. In 2007, he received a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from U.S. Representative Barbara Lee.

He served for 12 years as a judge for Project Censored. He also is on the advisory boards of Independent Progressive Politics Network and Education Without Borders as well as the advisory editorial boards of New Political Science and Nature, Society and Thought.

Published work
The first notable book in Parenti's writing career was Democracy for the Few. Originally published in 1974, it has since gone through nine editions and been used as a textbook in college political science courses. Democracy for the Few contains a critical analysis of the workings of American government with particular focus on the relationship between economic power and political power.

As a rule, Parenti's books were not reviewed in mainstream publications. The one exception was Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media (1986) which was reviewed by Michael Pollan in The New York Times. Pollan wrote: "By documenting patterns of conservative bias in a dozen major news stories in the printed and broadcast press, Inventing Reality provides a valuable rebuttal to the drumbeat of criticism of the news media from the right. Unfortunately, Mr. Parenti is so simplistic and doctrinaire in accounting for this bias that he makes his book easy to dismiss." The reviewer went on to note how the author "paints the press in such broad, Marxist strokes that he ignores many details. He cannot, for example, adequately account for episodes of courage and independence, as during Vietnam and Watergate." In a response to the review published as a Letter to the Editor, Parenti challenged Pollan's negative assessment.

Parenti continued his exploration of mass media in Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment (1992). The book dissects numerous popular movies and TV programs which, in Parenti's view, "have propagated images and themes that support militarism, imperialism, racism, sexism, authoritarianism, and other undemocratic values." He describes what he believes is a pattern of unflattering portrayals of working-class people and trade unions, and he disputes the notion that the major studios are "giving audiences what they want." In his Foreword to Matthew Alford's 2010 book Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy, Parenti reiterated several of the points from Make-Believe Media. Other leftist writers have been influenced by his media critiques.

Along with his interest in mass media's role in society, Parenti has regularly published articles and books on cultural matters, e.g., "Reflections on the Politics of Culture", in which he echoes Antonio Gramsci that culture "is largely reflective of existing hegemonic arrangements within the social order, strongly favoring some interests over others." He further develops this idea in his books Land of Idols, Superpatriotism, The Culture Struggle, and God and His Demons.

Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, Ethnic Life and Class Power (1996) contains Parenti's most wide-ranging collection of writings. Among its essays are "Fascism in a Pinstriped Suit" on the possibility of American fascism arriving subtly and gradually rather than intruding in a nightmarish "Big Brother" fashion; "Now for the Weather" on how even TV weather reports can be politicized; and "False Consciousness" on why the lower classes sometimes adopt the opinions and attitudes of the upper classes. In two essays on the JFK assassination, he breaks ranks with fellow leftists such as Noam Chomsky by giving credence to skeptics of the official government narrative. He also explores what he calls "Conspiracy Phobia on the Left". Dirty Truths concludes with autobiographical sketches and poems.

Parenti's provocative 1997 book Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism begins by examining the ideological underpinnings of European fascism in the 1920s and '30s as well as its incarnations as neofascism. He then takes the controversial position of defending the Soviet Union and other communist countries from reflexive condemnation, arguing that they featured a number of advantages over capitalist countries, e.g., by ensuring less economic inequality. He summarizes his approach in the Preface to Blackshirts and Reds: "This book invites those immersed in the prevailing orthodoxy of “democratic capitalism” to entertain iconoclastic views, to question the shibboleths of free-market mythology and the persistence of both right and left anti-communism, and to consider anew, with a receptive but not uncritical mind, the historic efforts of the much maligned Reds and other revolutionaries." He later argues that the Soviet Union's "well-publicized deficiencies and injustices" were exacerbated by the Russian Civil War, the Nazi-led multinational invasion, and by non-military modes of capitalist intervention against the Eastern Bloc. Moreover, he claims that "pure socialists" and "left anticommunists" had failed to specify a viable alternative to the "siege socialism" implemented in the Soviet model. By offering a rare defense of 20th century socialism, Blackshirts and Reds has elicited strong reactions from anarchist and leftist publications.

Appearances in media
Apart from video recordings of his public speaking engagements, Parenti has also appeared in the 1992 documentary The Panama Deception, and in the 2004 Liberty Bound and 2013 Fall and Winter documentaries as an author and social commentator.

In July 2003, Parenti was invited on the C-SPAN Booknotes program to discuss his latest work, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome. He was interviewed in Boris Malagurski's documentary film The Weight of Chains 2 (2014) about the former Yugoslavia. He appeared in an episode of the Showtime series Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, speaking briefly about the Dalai Lama (Episode 305 – Holier Than Thou).

New York City-based punk rock band Choking Victim use a number of samples from Michael Parenti's lectures in their album No Gods, No Managers.

Books

 * The Anti-Communist Impulse (1969)
 * Trends and Tragedies in American Foreign Policy (1971)
 * Ethnic and Political Attitudes: A Depth Study of Italian Americans (1975) ISBN 9780405064135
 * Power and the Powerless (1978) ISBN 9780312633738
 * The Sword and the Dollar: Imperialism Revolution and the Arms Race (1989) ISBN 9780312011673
 * Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment (1992) ISBN 9780312058944
 * Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America (1993) ISBN 9780312098414
 * Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media (2nd edition, 1993) ISBN 9781471731822
 * Against Empire (1995) ISBN 9780872862982
 * Dirty Truths (1996) ISBN 9780872863170
 * Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism (1997) ISBN 9780872863293
 * America Besieged (1998) ISBN 9780872863385
 * History as Mystery (1999) ISBN 9780872863576
 * To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (2001) ISBN 9781859843666
 * The Terrorism Trap (2002) ISBN 9780872864054
 * The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome (2003) ISBN 9781565849426
 * Superpatriotism (2004) ISBN 9780872864337
 * The Culture Struggle (2006) ISBN 9781471610721
 * Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader (2007) ISBN 9780872864825
 * Democracy for the Few (9th edition, 2010) ISBN 9780495911265
 * God and His Demons (2010) ISBN 9781616141776
 * The Face of Imperialism: Responsibility-Taking in the Political World (2011) ISBN 9781594519185
 * Waiting for Yesterday: Pages from a Street Kid's Life (2013) ISBN 9781599540580
 * Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies (2015) ISBN 9781612056623

title: Michael Parenti


text:
User talk:195.92.168.176

Proposed deletion of Keith Raffan

The article Keith Raffan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Liz Read! Talk! 18:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:195.92.168.176


text:
Talk:Ninjaken

Untitled
This whole page is a load of garbage with a bunch of japanese words in it that make it sound credible. The author(s) clearly know nothing about iai, or do they know anything about bushido. Eliminate this page entirely until true references are available in a wide range, or return this garbage to a stub.

Well, this one was a mess. I've done what I can, but more work definately needs to be done. For example, what is the "Koto period"? Also, the words "in Japan" should probably be added to that first sentence. It doesn't make sense as is. From China to where? ~Resister 10:10, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

False Information
No credible sources are listed, no historical references other than a supposed connection with a ryu.

Not only are there NO historical references supporting the idea, the article mispelled a few Japanese words that are very common in kenjutsu.
 * Instead of biting the newbies, and inserting insults into what was an actual article on the subject, perhaps you could rewrite the article with real facts and references? - Kenwarren 02:25, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * That looks much, much better! I'm not a martial artist, so I might look for some references (online or printed) to learn a bit more. Thanks! - Kenwarren

Kenwarren you do not have any clue about this art. Why don't you go to Tokyo University and look up the swords section? Better yet watch the Discovery Channels documentary about ninjitsu. Go find that grandmaster in Ninjitsu in Japan. Masssiveego

 * Why don't YOU present the evidence supporting the existence of this fictional weapon here in Wikipedia? What can be learned by going to Tokyo University? What documentary? Why should anyone use a television documentary as a primary source of research when studying Japanese swords? What grandmaster of Ninjitsu (sic)? Well I agree this article is marginally better than its duplicate (see Ninjato), which is close of being patent nonsense in my opinion.

Terminology
It has already been mentioned that this article duplicates ninjato, unless we are talking about two different weapons here. My understanding is that the terms tō (刀) and ken (剣) refer to a one-edged sword and a two-edged sword respectively. The ninja sword is usually depicted as one edged, so it should be a 刀. It is true that it is supposed to be straight, which is abnormal for a one-edged sword, but (again, as I understand it) that is not the criterion used to determine which word is used. Am I wrong? Furthermore, this article as it stands is more than a little annoying in that it immediately starts out with a refutation of the claims that such a sword existed, without even mentioning the claims to begin with. It makes much more sense to me to present the basic information first, and then trash it. --Iustinus/128.135.96.203 18:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you're pretty much right. 剣 is also the kanji used in general sword-related subjects, like kendo [剣道] and kenjutsu [剣術]. 刀 is also the kanji for "katana" (kun-yomi), and in modern usage generally refers to a "Traditional Japanese-style sword" as opposed to earlier designs copied from China or other designs copied from the West at various times (these and any foreign swords would be 剣、which is alternately read ken or tsurugi).

 * Of course, the Japanese wikipedia and most other sources refer to this as a Shinobigatana, 忍刀 ("stealth katana", more or less), and further states that because it was such an inferior weapon versus a proper sword, current theory is that it was mainly a symbolic icon for radical anti-Tokugawa groups. Japanese wikipedia entry at: []--220.29.92.4 19:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, first of all keep in mind that I wrote the comment you are replying to two years ago (almost exactly).
 * Second of all, ahah! That explains why the art of using nihontō is called 剣道 and not *刀道. I was under the impression, though, that in Japanese sometimes even forreign sabres were referred to as katana. Shinobigatana is of course the kun-yomi equivalent of ninjatō. Er... well, at least of nintō ;)
 * As for the anti-Tokugawa groups, that is excellent. But I dont' really speak Japanese. Perhaps you could import some of it for us? --Iustinus 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, I can translate some of it, but I may not have a chance to do it right away. (I work as a translator all week long, so I've developed an aversion to doing it on the weekend :) ) "nintou" does appear in the Edict dictionary, but that's an open-source compilation mainly developed by westerners, and so I've found that many of the definitions and so forth can be pretty far off the mark. The scant few japanese references I saw used the kun-yomi, but of course most just had the kanji itself with no reading.

 * You're also right that foreign swords can be called katana; the rules don't seem to be particularly strict, especially in conversational use. I would find it  curious if the official term for this sword used "ken", though.  If I can remember, I'll try and ask one of my (Japanese) co-workers tomorrow, but I'm not sure they're going to know a whole lot about ninja armament ;)--220.29.92.4 11:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand. I certainly can't do everythign on wikipedia I'd like to, due to real world responsibilities. I was not seriously suggesting that nintou was a real word, just using it to flippantly point out the relationship between shinobigatana and ninjatou.
 * As for ninjaken, see Svartalf's comment at Talk:Ninjatō, which seems to give a logical explanation. --Iustinus 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: shouldn't the title be either Ninjaken, Ninja-ken or at the very least Ninja ken with a lowercase k? As the title stands now, it looks like the article should be about some guy named Ken who happens to be a ninja. --Idem/128.135.96.203 19:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since it's been almost a year now, and no one has addressed these issues, I have decided to be bold, perhaps even rash, by renaming the page and suggesting the merger. If you disagree, state your arguments in one of the talk pages. --Iustinus 18:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

More False Information
The part about putting shortswords in long scabbards may be true. What's definetly not true is the stated reason for doing so. What it has at the moment is utter tripe about the supid old Ninja vs Samurai thing. It says it's to hide being a Ninja so the Samurai won't execute them. This is wrong for two reasons: Firstly, the Ninja were Samurai from some areas. Secondly, the real reason is subterfuge and a faster iaijutsu strike. And do we really suppose only Ninja to have employed that trick. (Sun Tzu in the Art of War disscusses and encorages such tactics. In broader terms, of course.)

I'm eding out the BS. I'll put in the quicker draw, etc. instead. But I'm not sure this page deserves to live. Redirect to Ninjato, I'd say.

Even if left, it needs a total purge, just about. And in the mean time it need to be tagged as missing sources, utter tripe, etc. Only I'm not sure how to do that. Do you just add it to the catagory?

The Japanese article is under "Shinobi-gatana", so it should probably be under that or "Ninjatō". I've never even heard of "Ninjaken". I'll probably move it unless someone says otherwise. Evan1975 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Source
before anyone makes further claims source your statements, otherwise there is no reason to object the inclusion of Jedi lightsabers into the discussion. Wandalstouring 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ninjaken


text: User talk:69.193.59.246

title: User talk:69.193.59.246


text:
Category:Linux

This category is under the Open Content, free software category tree, all Subcats should be Free Software. For Applications that run under Linux but are not necessarily free software, see Category:Linux software.

title: Category:Linux


text:
Westie

Westie, or Westy may refer to:

People

 * Westie (person) or Westy, someone who comes from the Western suburbs of Auckland, New Zealand or Sydney, Australia
 * Westie, someone who dances the West coast swing
 * Westies, a nickname for members of Principia College's Rackham Court West or Lowrey House
 * The Westies, nickname for the Royal Westminster Regiment of the Canadian Forces
 * "Westy", a common nickname of people with the surname "West" or a similar name

Organizations and companies

 * The Westies, an Irish American gang from New York City, United States
 * The Westies, an Irish gang from Blanchardstown in Dublin, Ireland
 * Westfield Sportscars, a manufacturer from Kingswinford, England
 * West Adelaide Football Club, an Australian rules football club from Adelaide, South Australia

Entertainment

 * "Westy Gals", a single by Auckland singer Jan Hellriegel
 * Rock of the Westies, an album by Elton John

Other uses

 * West Highland White Terrier, a breed of dog
 * Westy, a suburban district in Warrington, England
 * Camper vans made by Westfalia, primarily based on Volkswagen vans

title: Westie


text:
User:Rhyax

Hi, My name is Judson

I had my username changed a while ago, please see cohesion :)

title: User:Rhyax


text: Category:Swedish Royal Academies

title: Category:Swedish Royal Academies


text:
Friendship of peoples

Friendship of peoples (дружба народов, druzhba narodov) is a concept advanced by Marxist social class theory. According to Marxism, nationalism is only a tool of the ruling class, used to keep the working class divided and thus easier to control and exploit. With the success of class struggle (i.e. the abolition of social classes), the natural brotherhood of all workers would make the idea of separate nations obsolete.

The concept of the friendship of peoples is often opposed to "bourgeois cosmopolitanism". The concept of friendship of peoples was opposed to the concept of internationalism. In this context, the notion of internationalism was explained as "bourgeois cosmopolitanism", so the notion of "internationalism" was conceptually replaced by the notion of "international socialism", also known as "proletarian internationalism".

History
The Tsarist Russian Empire was dubbed the "prison of the peoples" ("тюрьма народов") by Vladimir Lenin. The Soviet Union, which replaced the empire, proclaimed that the goal of its national policy was to forge a new national entity, the "Soviet people". Leading up to and during the establishment of Bolshevik power, the friendship of peoples narrative limited the scope of Russian exceptionalism, however, throughout World War II the metaphor experienced a reconfiguration and the leading role of Russians in the October Revolution, as well as cultural and technological advancements of the Soviet Union was increasingly emphasized. Under Joseph Stalin despite the ubiquitous slogan of "friendship of the peoples" between 1939 and 1953 a total of approximately 6 million people from many of the Soviet Union's ethnic minorities (Poles, Romanians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Volga Germans, Finns, Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks, Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Koreans, Chechens, Ingush, and others) were forcefully resettled or deported, often to remote locations in the Far East or Central Asia, 1.5 million of whom died of disease or hunger, which in some cases made up more than 40 percent of a deported population.

The Constitution of the USSR of 1977 stated: "The union of the working class, the collective farm peasantry and the people's intelligentsia, the friendship of peoples and nationalities of the USSR have been strengthened." Even though the Soviet Union often claimed to make significant progress on "the nationalities question", its dissolution came about largely due to inter-ethnic conflict and like other communist countries a privileged nationality (in this case the Russians, in Yugoslavia the Serbs, in Vietnam the Kinh people and in China the Han Chinese) had more political and economic power. Some historians evaluating the Soviet Union as a colonial empire, applied the "prison of nations" idea to the USSR. Thomas Winderl wrote "The USSR became in a certain sense more a prison-house of nations than the old Empire had ever been." Historian Kevin O'Connor similarly described the concept "friendship of peoples" as "a metaphor that was intended to signify the existence of a multinational community on Soviet soil, but which in reality put the Russians "first among equals."

title: Friendship of peoples


text:
Time Masters

Time Masters may refer to

 * The Time Masters, a science fiction novel by Wilson Tucker
 * Time Masters, a 1995 novel by Gary Blackwood
 * Les Maîtres du temps, a Franco-Hungarian animated science fiction film
 * Time Masters, a DC comic book series starring Rip Hunter
 * Time Masters, an organization appearing in Legends of Tomorrow
 * Time Masters (game show), a 1996–98 Australian kids game show for Seven Network

title: Time Masters


text:
SDA

SDA or sda may refer to:

Computing

 * , the first mass-storage disk in Unix-like operating systems
 * T-Mobile SDA, a smartphone
 * Screen Design Aid, a utility program used by midrange IBM computer systems
 * SD Card Association, responsible for Secure Digital memory card standards
 * Serial Data Signal of an I²C electronic bus
 * Slow DoS attack
 * Symbolic data analysis

Life sciences

 * Sabouraud dextrose agar, microbiological media allows fungus to grow
 * Serotonin–dopamine antagonist, atypical antipsychotic
 * Specific dynamic action, the thermic effect of food
 * Stearidonic acid, omega-3 fatty acid
 * Structured digital abstract, describing relationships between biological entities

Other uses in science and technology

 * Scratch drive actuator, a microelectromechanical device
 * Space domain awareness, the ability to detect, track, and characterize passive and active space objects
 * Stereo Dimensional Array, a Polk Audio technology

Educational institutions

 * San Dieguito Academy, Encinitas, California, US
 * SDA Bocconi School of Management, in Milan, Italy

Political groups

 * Secular Democratic Alliance (India)
 * Singapore Democratic Alliance
 * Social Democratic Alliance (UK)
 * Stranka demokratske akcije ("Party of Democratic Action"), in Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Social Democratic Alliance in Vietnam
 * Party of Democratic Action of Sandžak (Stranka demokratske akcije Sandžaka), a political party in Serbia

Other organizations

 * SD Card Association, responsible for Secure Digital memory card standards
 * Security & Defence Agenda, a Brussels-based think-tank
 * Seventh-day Adventist Church, a Protestant Christian denomination
 * Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Australia
 * Space Development Agency, a DoD RDT&E agency
 * Systemic Design Association, for systems design
 * Swiss Telegraphic Agency (Schweizerische Depeschenagentur)

Other uses

 * SDA Tennis Open, a tournament held in Bercuit, Belgium
 * Saddam International Airport, airport code SDA
 * Same-day affirmation of financial market deals
 * San Diego and Arizona Railway, reporting mark SDA
 * Severe Disablement Allowance, a UK state benefit
 * Southern Domestic Airspace, Canada
 * Specially denatured alcohol
 * Speed Demos Archive of video game speedruns

title: SDA


text:
User talk:172/Talk block 10

Congo Free State
I went through and made some slight changes. Nothing drastic. I think the article is making progress, but still needs work. We should get some other opinions besides mine. I made specific comments on the talk page for Congo Free State. Sincerely, Kingturtle 10:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik vs the German nationalists and the "Fox News crowd"
I don't know whether you want to add anything to Matter of Wik evidence - its very one sided as it stands. Anyone he's ever NPOVed is baying for his blood. Secretlondon 13:59, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed. But not for the lack of effort on your part, which was basically ignored as soon as the article was unprotected. I was impressed by your magnanimity and patience in trying to find a mutually acceptable solution and was sorry to see, but not entirely surprised, that it was in vain. Given that this has been going on for more than a year there can only be one word to describe this kind of behaviour: obsessive. I suppose we can give the votes a try, although I wonder how binding the first would be, given that there is no precedent for "freezing" an article, and without the second vote banning the current participants, it may not have much effect. I have to confess too that I would have difficulty voting to "ban" you from the article; you, IMO, are not the problem. But never mind, it is worth a try, given that the mediation process hasn't seem to come together yet, and it might set a useful precedent for dealing with other issues. I am concious of your warning against trying to centralize decision-making here too much, though I wonder at the wisdom of permitting users free rein here who appear congenitally incapable of adapting to collaborative editing conventions. Lack of hierarchy and minimal authority can only flourish with a measure of individual responsibility I would have thought. -- Viajero 12:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * PS: Never thought I'd live to see the day:

I'm not sure it will do any good. He seems to be trying to recuse himself from such things lately and will probably suggest you go through the dispute resolution process, but that could lead a lot more trouble than it's worth. Angela. 02:02, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hello 172,

I noticed you asked GMan about my 'Ah, Fascism is Alive and Well!' paragraph. If you check the history of his talk page, you'll find my request that he revert some changes he made to the BNP article which were totally undemocratic. Democracy cuts both ways, so I believe everyone has the right to add content to articles, even if people (like GMan) disagree with them. That's freedom of speech; a freedom I wish all people would fundamentally agree with, although I doubt they ever will! You can see the changes GMan made to the BNP article by looking at the history page. The things he removed have been there for a long time. I believe that as the article in question doesn't get updated much anymore, GMan thought nobody was watching and he could just tailor some of it to his point of view. His comment - 'remove c++p' - clearly shows his attitude. GMan simply deleted my request to him with a 'remove rant' comment. That is very poor show and very immature in my opinion. I wait to see if he simply does the same in this case, which I'm sure he will. I would appreciate it if you, 172, would look at the changes GMan made to the BNP article and give a (hopefully) unbiased opinion. Please remember when doing so that there is a lot of other biased opinion in that article, from both sides of the left/right divide, but in general it balances itself out. If GMan starts removing things he doesn't like, then someone on the right will come along and do the same with things they don't like, and they will be fully justified in doing so as GMan has created a precedent. Thank you for your time and good night.

 * This person obviously objects to changes I made to the British National Party article. I removed some parts which read like a press releae rather than an encyclopedia article and made some parts more concise, I was not attmpting to bias the article, but this person obviously objects G-Man 13:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So you know, I did find the precedent you were looking for. User:mydogategodshat was turned down for adminship with almost 2/3 of the voters supporting him, and nobody objected. I can say this honestly because I was one of his supporters: I'd forgotten he had that many votes when I entered the discussion earlier. Anyway, I'm looking forward to Jimmy's thoughts, of course, but we have a system in place, and it seems to be functioning. Thanks for your good work here. Jwrosenzweig 05:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I had been rather busy this past week with work and did not see BL's nomination. I would certainly vote for him if there was a recount. Danny 05:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. I thought I'd better point it out as you said you were having trouble with your email recently. Angela. 14:04, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Could you at least try talking to User:200.84.43.124 before banning him for 1000 days? He's only made 4 edits... Evercat 13:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the issue top "watch over the page". But it's excessive to ban someone for so long for 4 edits, which do not look like real vandalism. At least point him towards NPOV... or if you must ban him, make it for a shorter length of time. :-) Evercat 13:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No worries. It isn't that important. I thought the opposers arguments were kinda lame, but whatever. :) BL 00:11, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

North Korea
Could you take a look at North Korea? A new user has POVed it a bit... --mav

The blocked user was someone using a series of proxy servers to bait us... I expect that problem users will be updated eventually. Durig the "fun" several admins also ended up getting blocked while confirming what was happening. Jamesday 01:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I was just checking that it was indeed an open proxy, by accessing Wikipedia through it. But by the time I got it set up, Adam Bishop had already blocked it. -- Tim Starling 01:53, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't the POV which got him blocked. It was the "bet you can't stop me" taunting in IRC as he switched IPs around baiting people. If you look at what I incorporated you'll find that I did remove the worst of the POV - and I agree that there's still more worth removing - Stalin was pretty nasty but he did a great deal of modernising in one generation. If you stop by in IRC I'll paste you the log so you can see what I mean. Meanwhile, how about leaving it for a while so I can do a more thorough rework when I have more time, likely tomorrow, since I do actually agree that it needs significant work. Jamesday 01:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have been compiling a List of United States firearms topics and noticed most of the articles have a very anti-gun control bias. Before I started the list, there was only one orphan article on groups that favored gun control. I was wondering if you knew of any user that would be willing to go over these articles to make sure they are NPOV. This is particulary important because gun control may become a major political issue in the US due to the sunsetting of the federal assault weapons ban. --Hcheney 16:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Replacing the photo on Adam's page was childish and in clear violation of our policies. If you want to be taken seriously you should behave in a dignified manner, even when your "opponent" does not.—Eloquence 16:03, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support. I;ve been mostly retreating to the quiet of Wikisource and Wikipedia. I suppose if my work there were counted my article total would be noticeably higher. For me being a Wikipedia sysop is one of theose thanks-but-no-thanks situations. Adam Carr's carryings on at Kim Il-jung seem to be as amateurish as what you see from official DPRK sources, and differs only in expressing the opposing POV. I had thought of responding to your (at least I think it was you) comments about "tyranny of the majority" on the mailing list. It's very difficult to explain to those people who equate democracy with voting. Eclecticology 04:47, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Given the tone of your conflict with User:Adam_Carr, and as a neutral observer who has nothing to say about the article in question, may I suggest that you both seek mediation, rather than just slugging it out? Danny 13:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A truly inane edit to Karl Marx: ...many have concluded the Soviet Union's numerous internal failings and subsequent collapse is a direct result of the pratical failings of Marx's policies. -- Viajero 16:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I don't agree at all with the views of the troublemaker on the problems of land distribution article, I don't see why the page needs to be protected. Protecting a talk page is a a pretty extreme measure, don't you think? Surely he has a right to make his views known on the talk page? Then again, maybe he's done something worse elsewhere that I don't know about. Everyking 19:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/progressivepix/wikiwatch Venceremos 10:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The user in question WAS inconvenienced by a 24 hour range block I enacted the first week of March; I cancelled the block after he/she complained to me. There aren't even any active range block BY me, and haven't been since at least sunday or monday. I really don't know what's going on, but I'd be very surprised if my range block is still impacting ANYONE. Pakaran. 17:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I did actually poke around the Reagan years section, but got sidetracked by Isenberg's in-depth study of the post-WWII US Navy - a colossus bestriding the world but unsure what to do with itself, book is an interesting prism on the official ship histories that we've have been adding here... Anyway, I got two high-order bits of interest. First, I looked at Tyndall and Shi's two-volume US history text, and it only had a couple pages on Reagan years, didn't do much more than recite the bare facts and was not nearly as in-depth as what we have here. Encyclopedia articles really shouldn't be longer than textbooks, so somehow or another things need to be pruned and partitioned. Second, I noticed in the Reagan shelves proper that all the books were either contemporaneous polemics, by partisans or their opponents, or of more recent date, conference proceedings where the historians argue for various interpretations, and the post-presentation Q&A often includes Reagan people justifying themselves. So my takeaway is that for details of policy there is not yet a consensus that can be distilled into a neutral article. So what I would suggest is to move the detailed economics and policy material into dedicated articles, and start (informally) budgeting by word count. WP is not paper, but we still need to watch how we're consuming the reader's attention span. It wouldn't hurt to do a little word count exercise on Britannica's articles, use that as a general target. Stan 19:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your effusive support on RFA! It is much appreciated. –Hajor 16:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for your vote and kind words on Request for Adminship. --Hcheney 23:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles
172, I'd like to point out that I'm not supporting the removal of the article from FA, but that the policies regarding that page are specific - an article is delisted until the objections are resolved. I also feel compelled to inform you that you have reverted said page 4 times in the last 24 hours, a violation of [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version
 * 1) Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert guideline)|the three revert guideline]]. Is the listing or nonlisting of one article on Featured articles while it's merrits are discussed really worth a possible 24 hour ban? Gentgeen

testimony needed
We are having a debate on my page on whether rickk uses Junta and mcCarthyist tactics please participate.GrazingshipIV 02:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

reverted Fascism
Would you believe I actually reverted your NPOV edits? I'd better explain.

I think we can always edit for NPOV later. Right now I think it might be interesting to see if we can actually subvert Wheeler to the Wikipedia side. ;-) Lets let the wise wikipedians try to work out a consensus for Facism with Wheeler. If they fail (let's hope not!), then hmm, say a week from now I'll put the NPOV edits back in again myself, or you can do it if you like.

Kim Bruning 11:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it, a head's up on some of the recent Nazism edits by Sam Spade. I reverted twice yesterday, but it is getting frustrating. Danny

Requests for page protection. Done. ant

Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship so you can make an informed decision on my vote --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re: grazingship
Hcheney has come clean with some truths regarding GrazingshipIV. You may want to reconsider your Quickpoll vote. Kingturtle 23:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah it seems we are both engaged in the seemingly endless task of keeping the WP safe from loopy right-wing conspiricy theories. If its going to be kept then I think that the Nazism and socialism article should be re-written from scratch, although I'd much prefer it was deleted.

Actually I created the page to remove the "Nazism is Socialism" dross from the main Socialism article, in the hope that it would sit in a dusty corner where no-one would notice it. But that doesnt seem to have worked.

BTW the dissapearance of User:jtdirl is rather alarming. I hope nothing bad has happened to him, have you tried e-mailing him? G-Man 23:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I've rewritten Nazism and socialism, to attempt to make it, you know, an actual article, as opposed to a list of nonsense. My version was probably fairly POV, but I tried to trace the contemporary thoughts on the relations of Nazism and socialism (by Nazis, by Socialists, and by supporters of the center-right parties), and then to discuss Nazism in practice, and finally arguments after the war about this question. As I said, it was pretty unsympathetic to the notion that Nazism is socialism, but I think it was infinitely better than the article before. I was, of course, immediately reverted by User:Sam Spade (so you'll have to check in the history), but I'd like the opinions of others about this. Obviously, any weaknesses in my version could be improved upon by further editing, which cannot be said for the current article... john 07:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No worries. I think this is the sort of subject that we have to work really hard on to make sure that we simply report the bare facts. "Critics claim XYZ." Bang. Next topic. Otherwise it gets really messy. But I rarely do political subjects anymore. Cheers - Tannin

Origins
Could you respond at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/categorization so that we can work on getting out of this nasty situation? --mav 20:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I put a sample division of the page here; please take a look and tell me what you think (on the categorization talk page). Note that right now no other parts of WP link to this set of 4 pages; passing users will still see the current single article. +sj+ 08:19, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. One last change made: I renamed "OotACW (1/4)" to "OotACW", what all external links point to; it has a full TOC for the entire article (by hand, not auto-generated).  Please see what you think.  (Since we don't have tranclusion working yet, there's no way to present a long- and short- version of an article without duplicating information, in which case the two versions might get out of synch; once we have transclusion, these presentation issues will be moot points!)  +sj+ 21:44, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Fascism
The article is now protected thanks to TDC's imbecilic insistence on putting the Soviet Union on the list of fascist countries. Sigh...any ideas for how to proceed? john 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, could you help out with talking to AndyL about why we don't need a lengthy discussion of how conservatives helped the Nazis into power in the Nazism and socialism article? As Wikipedia's fiery stalinist (or whatever), perhaps he'd listen to you. john 00:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Just to note that I don't think you're actually a stalinist. That was a joke.) john 00:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New Imperalism
Hey hows it going just wondering if New Imperalism is going to come out of page protection soon I think I have info to contribute, I don't want to get involved if it's going to be a real hassle what was the reason for protecting? GrazingshipIV 06:53, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Intervention in TheBam
A user known as thebam is attempting to discredit and smear me on wikipedia this user was created after my exchange with rickk which MAY be a coincidence eitherway I do beleive he is a sockpuppet created by someone who wants to discredit me as he has no other contributions other than trying to pretend I "struck" a deal to get at rickk to make myself an admin. Please intervene in this matter. GrazingshipIV 17:20, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Patience
Patience, indeed, seems to be necessary for dealing with contentious issues on talk pages. But repeated bludgeonings with actual knowledge don't seem to be enough to hold back the likes of Sam Spade, who has, I think, rather revealed his true colors at Talk:Nazism and socialism with his proclamation that any form of government intervention in the economy qualifies as socialism. I'm kind of at a loss as to how to deal with such issues. Spade seems to mostly go about adding extreme libertarian POV to articles, and I have no particular ethical problem with just reverting his nonsensical "NPOVing" attempts. But just reverting nonsense from someone who's seemingly perfectly willing to continue spouting nonsense for all eternity (and is, in fact, quite patient and clever about it - he didn't intervene while AndyL and I were disputing over how much should be said about conservative support for Hitler, waiting until we'd pretty much finished arguing before he started on his obnoxious editing) doesn't seem especially effective. And Spade's not really done anything that ought to merit him being banned, either. I'm trying to see if there's any way to incorporate his views, but a statement like "Some libertarians feel that any government intervention in the economy is socialist, which would make the Nazi regime, like most other governments throughout history, [Spade has himself said that he thinks Eisenhower republicanism, feudalism, and mercantilism are all forms of socialism] socialist" would simply be completely ridiculous, and embarrassing for wikipedia. At the same time, Spade is constantly demanding that we provide sources for completely uncontroversial statements about the Nazi regime, and citing undergraduate history papers online as sources for his arguments. What the hell is to be done about stuff like this? john 08:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't get anything from you, although I'm not sure where I would get it. john 18:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New user?
Not sure where you got the idea I am a "new user" from, unless you count everyone here under six months as one. I've made my first logged-in edit at Katzenelnbogen on 22:04, 17 Dec 2003, and have since become quite aware of Wik's love for revert and edit wars. I won't be drawn into one again. — Jor (Talk) 19:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lir
Would you be more or less agreeable to mediating with Lir instead of Sam? Tuf-Kat 20:39, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Origins, Resource lists
Looks like it will be featured again soon. Great! Thanks for raising the bar around here. Thanks also for the lovely resource list on your user page; I've snagged a copy and am trying to integrate it into my own... Let me know if you successfully carry that template over to any other long articles. +sj+ 05:17, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

It looks like in your last (or second to last?) edit of Talk:Fascism you deleted a comment of mine. If this was on purpose, why did you do it? It is poor etiquette and you shouldn't delete what others write. If this was an acceident -- don't worry about it, but please restore what I wrote. Slrubenstein
 * Thanks for the response, I'll sort it out, SLR

QUICKPOL
I add new QUCIKPOLL for JOR POV Pusher. Please vote!!

Fascism and Communism
The page is Ed Poor's creation. I was going to put it up for deletion as redundant but I ended up trying to rewrite it instead. AndyL 06:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll and Red Scare
Hey, I see that a quick poll has been started about you for your reverts to Red Scare. While I would agree that you were basically right in your changes, I don't think you necessarily went about it in the best way. The appearance, at least, of cordiality and desire for consensus, can help tremendously. That said, I think this is an example of why the three revert rule is problematic, and an example of procedural fetishism on Wikipedia - it matters not who is right about a content dispute, but rather who is more impolite in pushing their views. john 07:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, I think you misunderstand me on Talk: Fascism. First, I know what Sam Spade is trying to do. He said that you need mediation and my comment did two things. First, in the summary I pointed out that mediation is not about one person but between two people (i.e., him); in my comment I pointed out that mediation involving him and you is up to him and you. If you look at the mediation page, you will see that they rather not have only one person request mediation -- they prefer all involved parties to agree to it. The point is, Sam Spade shouldn't have requested mediation without your agreement. If you don't agree (as seems to be the case) then it's unlikely there will be any mediation between the two of you. I was implicitly criticizing Sam for not getting your permission. I didn't do this explicitly, because I think that is for you to decide (all you need to say is, "I don't agree, and the mediation committee prefers requests where both parties agree").

Second, I was asking about mediation between us and WHEELER/TDC -- my request (or rather question, to you, John, and Adylehrer, as to whether you want to request mediation) doesn't concern Sam Spade at all, and certainly isn't suggesting that you are a problem -- only WHEELER and TDC are problems. But Iwon't make the mistake Sam Spade made, and unilaterally put in a request on the mediation page. All of us have to agree first.

If you think mediation is a bad idea, what do you suggest? If the main page is unblocked, you know WHEELER and TDC won't quit with their garbage. If we revert them three times in one day (which I bet would happen), we can be temproarily banned! We need to bring other people into this. Besides, even if this doesn't happen on the main page, they are consuming far too much time and energy on the talk page. A couple of days ago I suggested we all just ignore them, but some people can't resist responding to them. Such responses are thoughtful, detailed, and informed, but only feed the trolls. I really think something more is needed. Slrubenstein

Bolshevik
Could you please take a look at the Bolshevik article. It's awful as it stands and desperately needs work. AndyL 05:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War
Those changes to part one are good- it's much clearer to me now! I still have questions on parts 2,3 and 4 though. ;) Markalexander100 07:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two and three are good now too. Four? Markalexander100 10:37, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not really qualified to comment on the Marx article, esp. since that looks more like it's a move of text rather than phrasing changes. I'll keep an eye on Fidel Castro, though. Meelar 21:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS You might want to watch out--that last revert was your fourth in 24 hours, violating the policy. Don't get yourself tempbanned. Yours, Meelar 21:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you reply to my last e-mail I sent a while ago, cause if you did I didn't get it. G-Man 18:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re: back me up
You wrote:

 * Things would go a lot more smoothly if another admin backed me up next time, instead of dragging me on this page...

I reckon things might go more smoothly if you didn't revert TDC quite so hard, allowing another editor to back you up by reverting TDC with you. In a way, by reverting so hard, you're kinda preventing people from backing you up in the most obvious way possible - by editing the page in question.

Just something to think about. Also, I guess you might want to vote in opposition to the stuff on wikipedia talk:revert, if you find the time. I can do it for you, if you'd like. Martin

172, do you need other people to help you fight your fights? TDC 00:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yo, number boy, I gotcher back. Don't be wasting yore 3 reverts a day on trash, but gimme a holler! --Uncle Ed 20:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Message
172, I need help with white seperatism I tried reasoning with people on the talk page that white seperatism is racist but they refused to budge. I added that it was to the page but I doubt it will stand for long. Please review the talk page to see the debate but I would like some sort of process if the page continues to be distorted by white supremacists trying to hide from their beliefs. thanks. GrazingshipIV 19:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ok
Thanks for the clearifcation 172 (im a little intoxicated so a cant spell) Comrade Nick

True or false??
True or false: you are someone who is trying to take the word "American" out of the English language. 66.32.157.53 01:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * False. I'm trying ensure that we match the meaning of the word "American" with its definition(s) as precisely as possible. When the meaning of another adjective fits more precisely than "American" in a given context, we ought to use it and recognize an encyclopedia's goal of clarity, precise usage of the word "American," and the English language. BTW, I say this with humility. For the sake of full disclosure, I have a little egg in my face saying this now. The day after I'd made those changes to United States, I logged onto Wikipedia and found that my article Origins of the American Civil War was the featured article on the main page. So, as I try to encourage users to use "U.S." as an adjective when it fits better than "American," everyone who logs into WP now sees how I've made that mistake in an article title! Talk about unfortunate situational irony! 172 21:27, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - I assumed "American Civil War" was a proper noun, and the "official" name of the war. Similarly, the Battle of Britain is not the only battle to have taken place in the UK. :)

Btw, ik is in arbitration again. You supported him last time (IIRC), so if you have comments or evidence, Requests for arbitration/Wik2. Martin 21:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No problems. Danny 00:26, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've unblocked Wik. I would like your support on this. Danny 14:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't the "official" name "the war between the states"? AndyL 17:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Left-Right Politics
Hey, could you check out Left-Right Politics? TDC's been, IMO, making mush of it, but I'd like other opinions. Thanks. john 01:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An old friend...
I think someone "new" is really someone old... if you catch my drift. If you have similar suspicions, let me know. If I sound like some sort of raving lunatic, ignore me. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

And would that be me Dante Alighieri? TDC 21:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What on earth would make you think that? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, just realized what it probably was. The last edit I made before the one to 172's talk page was an unprotection of TDC's user page. I had accidently clicked protect instead of discuss and immediately undid the protection (check the logs). While we're at it, those two buttons should REALLY not be right next to each other. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oil for food allegations
I put it on vote for deletion: Get-back-world-respect 00:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Be still my beating heart! You put in a VFD? TDC 21:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War
Thank you for pointing out the more stable edit. The page has been reverted to the edit you mentioned and remains protected. --Flockmeal 03:45, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

If it were only about the American Civil War article, I'd certainly vote in your favor. But those other two edit wars are utterly bewildering to me, and I'm not sure I really want to get involved. And you really shouldn't revert a page 12 times...I hope you don't get banned, but I'm not really sure I'd be acting in good faith in voting no. john 04:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll
I know getting banned would be a bitter pill to swallow, but please consider staying even if the worst should happen. Though we are not ideological soul mates, Wikipedia needs a balance, and users like you to be neutral. --Hcheney 04:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, please don't threaten to leave. These people are stupid, but that doesn't mean it's worth leaving the project over. It's also a bit unfair to kind of blackmail people into voting against the temp ban by threatening to leave forever. I don't think what you've done warrants a temp ban, but it certainly seems to be a violation of the current rules, and you certainly knew that at the time. So why not just sit out the temp ban (if that's what occurs), cool down a bit, and think about where you are? In terms of dealing with these people, yeah, it's extremely frustrating. But going off and reverting twelve times doesn't actually get things any closer to where you want them to be, does it? A bit of patience, and decent periods of time either away from Wikipedia or ignoring the various conflicts you are involved in, can do wonders, I think. At any rate, if you feel you have to leave, I for one will think that Wikipedia has lost one of its best contributors. john 04:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Statement on my involvement
Here is a copy of what I've written on VV's talk page and how I feel about the whole issue:

Well Beard, of course, is now used by right wing racists who want to argue the Civil War wasn't about slavery, so that's not all that crazy. john 05:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've voted for you on the Quickpoll now. Since RickK has voted against you, admittedly not on the basis of the actual question at hand, but because he wants you to leave, I figure I may as well balance that out. And now to bed. john 05:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to see this happen to you, I too know what it is like to be unfairly quickpolled. Very Verily's record speaks for itself as does yours. You have made real contributions to wikipedia and this attempt to subvert the process of quickpolling is outrageous. I hope you pull through. I am not eligable to vote yet, but if I were I would in your favor. Thanks, keep up the good work, and please do not leave. GrazingshipIV 05:37, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki-Politics
I don't think I would do well on the conflict resolution committees because I am morally opposed to the byzantine wiki pseudo-judiciary. I think there is a general crisis in wiki-governance. I hope that wikipedia will transition to governance by a representative democracy with an common-law style independent judiciary for enforcement. --Hcheney 06:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't go
Well, just that. Let them block you or not, but do not let it block your contributing.Pfortuny 08:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zimbabwe
I don't disagree with you. I was originally going to redirect your redirect to the History of Zimbabwe article but I found the material insufficient. That's probably the best place to integrate the Rhodesia material IMHOAndyL 04:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

History of Chile
I hope we can reach a mutually acceptable compromise on how to describe the involvement of the United States in the 1973 coup in Chile. After this weekend's discussion, I see there are 2 distinct points:
 * 1) Was the coup justified, or not? (a matter of values)
 * 2) To what degree was the CIA involved? (a matter of fact)

I think that the fact-value distinction will help us clarify things. What do you think? --Uncle Ed 14:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Red Terror
User:172, I note you have removed the link to the Red Terror from the article History of Russia and the Soviet Union (1917-1927), This was one of Lenin's most important policies for which there is good historical evidence. Please replace this link. Fred Bauder 15:49, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

A quote from Gulag: A History, 'The Red Terror was crucial to Lenin's struggle for power. Concentration camps, the so-called "special camps," were crucial to the Red Terror. They are mentioned in the very first decree on Red Terror...' She footnotes that decree as being titled, "On Red Terror" and as being published in Sbornik, September 5, 1918, page 11.

 * Not sure what words the Bolsheviks used for Red Terror, but I think they did use that term, in Russian of course. I haven't written an article yet, but have enough info. Please see if you can fit it in. Fred Bauder 22:14, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

References for the Red Terror

 * Page 9, Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History, Doubleday, 2003, hardcover, 677 pages, ISBN 0767900561
 * Chapter 3, "The Red Terror", pages 71-80, Courttois, et al, The Black Book of Communism Crimes Terror Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0674076087
 * Articles in Encarta, One entitled Red Terror

Quickpoll notice
You and VeryVerily are the subjects of a new quickpoll for your reverts on Saddam Hussein. --Michael Snow 22:43, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For a user who has supposedly left us, you certainly have been doing a lot of editing recently. - Fennec 13:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou, Abe - both for the heads up and for the contribution that you yourself made to the article. The illustrations in particular gave it a lift and made it, I think, much more readable. Best -- Tannin 14:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Just because some wikipedians are on your back doesn't mean you aren't appreciated by others. Last time I checked a majority voted against banning you for a day so please stay. AndyL 18:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of bastards I've started a quickpoll on banning Vogel. AndyL 18:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I undeleted: see User page, which I'm guessing you haven't seen, though it's vaguelly inferrable from deletion policy. You're supposed to go through VfD, just like a non-admin. Part of the whole business of admin powers not being special priviledges - if Joe Bloggs can't delete and undelete his user page on a whim, then neither should we. I'm not going to list it on VfD, because as you are in the process of leaving, I'm not sure whether you'll want to go through that hassle. Martin 21:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, I thought over recent events and realized I am way too harsh. I'm not sufficiently courteous or cooperative to point a finger at anyone else. (Watching The Greatest Story Ever Told this weekend may have sparked this realization :-)

Anyway, you might want to take a look at this plea for more courtesy on a talk page you recently visited. --Uncle Ed 13:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:172/Talk block 10


text:
Category:Indo-European languages

The Indo-European languages include some 443 (SIL estimate) languages and dialects spoken by about three billion people, including most of the major language families of Europe and western Asia.

title: Category:Indo-European languages


text:
Soviet occupation zone in Germany

The Soviet occupation zone in Germany (Sowjetische Besatzungszone (SBZ) or Ostzone, lit. 'East Zone'; Советская оккупационная зона Германии) was an area of Germany that was occupied by the Soviet Union as a communist area, established as a result of the Potsdam Agreement on 1 August 1945. On 7 October 1949 the German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly referred to in English as East Germany, was established in the Soviet occupation zone.

The SBZ was one of the four Allied occupation zones of Germany created at the end of World War II with the Allied victory. According to the Potsdam Agreement, the Soviet Military Administration in Germany (German initials: SMAD) was assigned responsibility for the middle portion of Germany. Eastern Germany beyond the Oder-Neisse line, equal in territory to the SBZ, was to be annexed by Poland and its population expelled, pending a final peace conference with Germany.

By the time armed forces of the United States and United Kingdom began to meet Soviet Union forces, forming the Line of Contact, significant areas of what would become the Soviet zone of Germany were outside Soviet control. After several months of occupation, these gains by the British and Americans were ceded to the Soviets by July 1945, according to the previously agreed occupation zone boundaries.

The SMAD allowed four political parties to develop, though they were all required to work together under an alliance known as the "Democratic Bloc" (later the National Front). In April 1946, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) were forcibly merged to form the Socialist Unity Party which later became the governing party of the GDR.

The SMAD set up ten "special camps" for the detention of Germans, making use of some former Nazi concentration camps.

In 1945, the Soviet occupation zone consisted primarily of the central portions of Prussia. After Prussia was dissolved by the Allied powers in 1947, the area was divided between the German states (Länder) of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia. On 7 October 1949, the Soviet zone became the German Democratic Republic. In 1952, the Länder were dissolved and realigned into 14 districts (Bezirke), plus the district of East Berlin.

In 1952, with the Cold War political confrontation well underway, Joseph Stalin sounded out the Western Powers about the prospect of a united Germany which would be non-aligned (the "Stalin Note"). The West's lack of interest in this proposal helped to cement the Soviet Zone's identity as the GDR for the next four decades.

"Soviet zone" and derivatives (or also, "the so-called GDR") remained official and common names for East Germany in West Germany, which refused to acknowledge the existence of a state in East Germany until 1972, when the government of Willy Brandt extended a qualified recognition under its Ostpolitik initiative.

title: Soviet occupation zone in Germany