text:
Hayford Peirce

Hayford Peirce (January 7, 1942 – November 19, 2020) was an American writer of science fiction, mysteries, and a spy thriller. He wrote numerous short stories for the science-fiction magazines Analog, Galaxy, and Omni, as well as mystery shorts for Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine and Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine.

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction states that "he established a name for lightly written tales whose backgrounds were unusually well conceived."

Biography
Peirce was born in 1942 in Bangor, Maine. His father, also named Hayford, a recognized authority on Byzantine art, wrote several books on the subject in French.

Peirce began writing in 1974, with the sale of "Unlimited Warfare", a science fiction short story to Analog magazine.

In 2017, The Motley Fool published a financial article describing how Peirce became a "dividend millionaire" by investing in high-dividend stocks over a 22-year period.

Writing career
Peirce wrote a number of science fiction and mystery novels, some of which were published by Tor Books, and the others by Wildside Press. They have been translated into several languages. Typical of them are Napoleon Disentimed and Blood on the Hibiscus. His one spy thriller, written in London in 1968 at the height of the fictional spy mania, was The Bel Air Blitz.

Many of his short stories concern on-going protagonists. In the science fiction field there have been collections of his Chap Foey Rider, Capitalist to the Stars stories, of his Jonathan White, Stockbroker in Orbit stories, and of his Sam Fearon, Time Scanner stories. In the mystery field, he has had two collections about protagonists living in Tahiti, Commissaire Tama, a chief of police, and Joe Caneili, a private eye.

Peirce also collaborated with David M. Alexander on stories that have appeared in Analog.

Death
On November 19, 2020, Peirce was found in critical condition at his home in Tucson, Arizona, with a self-inflicted gunshot wound; his wife, Wanda Zhang Peirce, was found dead at the scene in "a possible murder suicide", according to police. Peirce was hospitalized, and subsequently died. His wife was the former owner of Wanda Z's Chinese, a restaurant in Oro Valley which had closed in 2015.

Science fiction

 * Napoleon Disentimed, Tor Books (1987) ISBN 0-8125-4898-1
 * The Thirteenth Majestral (1989), reissued as Dinosaur Park (1994) ISBN 0-8125-4892-2 (both editions)
 * Phylum Monsters, Tor Books (1989) ISBN 0-8125-4894-9
 * Chap Foey Rider, Capitalist to the Stars (2000) (short story collection)
 * Jonathan White, Stockbroker in Orbit (2001) (short story collection)
 * The Burr in the Garden of Eden, Wildside Press (2001) ISBN 1-58715-277-0 (first published in Germany as Ein Paradies mit Tücken, (1998), Heyne)
 * Sam Fearon: Time Scanner (2001) (short story collection)
 * Flickerman, Wildside Press (2001)
 * The Spark of Life, Wildside Press (2001)
 * Black Hole Planet, Betancourt & Company (2003) ISBN 1-59224-935-3
 * Aliens, Betancourt & Company (2003) (short story collection)
 * With a Bang, and Other Forbidden Delights (2005) (short story collection)
 * The 13th Death of Yuri Gellaski, Wildside Press (2005) ISBN 0-8095-8944-3
 * In the Flames of the Flickerman , Wildside Press (2011) ISBN 978-1-4344-3037-3

Mysteries and spy thriller

 * Trouble in Tahiti: Blood on the Hibiscus (2000)
 * Trouble in Tahiti: P.I. Joe Caneili, Discrétion Assurée (2000)
 * Trouble in Tahiti: Commissaire Tama, Chief of Police (2000)
 * Trouble in Tahiti: The Gauguin Murders (2001)
 * The Bel Air Blitz (2002)

title: Hayford Peirce


text:
Petz

Petz (Dogz and Catz) is a series of single-player video games dating back to 1995, in which the player can adopt, raise, care for and breed their own virtual pets. The original Petz has sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide and the brand has grown to over 22 million copies since coming under Ubisoft.

Development
Petz (Dogz, Catz, et al.) is a series of single-player video games dating back to 1995, in which the player can adopt, raise, care for and breed their own virtual pets. The original Petz games — Dogz: Your Computer Pet and Catz: Your Computer Pet — were developed by PF.Magic. Dogz was released in 1995 and Catz was released in 1996.

Rob Fulop developed the first title in the series, Dogz: Your Computer Pet, following the controversy surrounding his previous title Night Trap and with the desire to make a game that was "so cute and so adorable that no could ever, ever say it was bad for kids". He claims to have consulted a shopping mall Santa Claus to understand "exactly what kids wanted" who informed him that puppies were a popular gift request every single year, leading to the idea of a virtual puppy.

After earning revenues of $8 million in 1997, PF.Magic was acquired by The Learning Company's Mindscape division for $15.8 million in 1998. In 2001, Ubi Soft (Ubisoft, since 2003) acquired the entertainment division of The Learning Company, granting Ubisoft exclusive publishing rights to 88 titles, including Dogz and Catz.

After Ubisoft acquired the series, some games that were Japanese in origin were localized under the Petz name. For example, Petz: Hamsterz Life 2 on Game Boy Advance is a localization of Hamster Club 3, and distinctly different from its DS counterpart, although both DS Hamsterz games were also Japanese-developed but published in English territories by Ubisoft.

Gameplay
In Dogz: Your Computer Pet and Catz: Your Computer Pet, the player choose a dogz or catz to adopt and name in the breedz and gender of their choice as a puppyz or kittenz. After a period of time, the petz become adults. In Petz 3, Petz 4, and Petz 5, adult petz can breed to have more kittenz or puppyz of their own. Cross-breeding can create different types of petz, called mixed breeds.

There are a number of toyz, food and water bowls, and treatz available. Petz can learn tricks with positive rewards such as petting and treatz, or trained not to do something using the punishment (water) spray bottle. Petz must be looked after properly; abused or neglected petz may run away.

Players could share their petz with others who had the game via an email. Each version allowed the importing of petz from all earlier versions. There is also a camera feature, permitting snapshots of petz to be taken and saved.

Later versions of the games included a Petz Web Fun Pack, Petz Publisher and a Petz Player web browser plug-in, allowing players to publish their Petz online in playable webpages. The Petz Publisher does not work anymore, due to the fact that the website has been remodeled with the newer Petz games by Ubisoft.

Animals
The initial games were limited to dogz and catz, but additional animals were also introduced. These animals include Pigz, Bunnyz, Monkeyz, Dolphinz, and Hamsterz, some of which received their own games.

Users learned how to reverse-engineer the system, and began producing additional breedz, toyz, playscenes, clothes, and developer tools for the games, as permitted by PF.Magic, Mindscape, and Ubisoft.

Reception
Entertainment Weekly gave Catz a B+ and wrote that it is an accurate simulation of felines.

The Petz series is also notable for the online community that grew around it, which game designer Nathalie Lawhead speculates is part of the reason for its success and enduring legacy.

The original Dogz and Catz sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide and the brand has grown to over 22 million copies since coming under Ubisoft.

Academic papers

 * Socially Intelligent Virtual Petz
 * Creating Emotional Relationships with Virtual Characters
 * Virtual Babyz: Believable Agents with Narrative Intelligence

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

title: Petz


text:
User talk:148.126.100.80

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Scientizzle 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

August 2011
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Nervosia. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Ben Ben (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Nervosia, you may be blocked from editing. Ben Ben (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nervosia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ben Ben (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2017
Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Fish sauce— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2019
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on American Airlines. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

title: User talk:148.126.100.80


text:
Croatian science fiction

Croatian science fiction consists mostly of literature, novel and stories published in various magazines and story collections, and some movies and graphic novels. The first Croatian occurrence of science fiction happened in 1919 and since then, the region has seen the birth and death of several countries/states. This dynamic left a mark on the genre.

Beginnings (1919 - 1940)
The first elements of science fiction in Croatian literature appeared in the novel "Crveni ocean" ("Red Ocean") written by Marija Jurić-Zagorka. Zagorka was almost exclusively a mainstream author and "Crveni ocean" was an adventure novel with occasional SF elements. This is why it is usually considered that the first "real" Croatian science fiction novel was "Na Pacifiku godine 2255." ("In the Pacific in the Year 2255") by Milan Šufflay. Where Zagorka only touched the SF motifs for the purpose of an adventure story, Šufflay dived into the genre with all of its apparatus: technological achievements and social and political change. As the title says, the novel takes place in the far future, following the collapse of Western civilization.

The pre-WWII era ended with a few more authors and novels, mostly serialized in newspapers, such as "Gospodin Čovjek" ("A Man of Stature") by Mato Hanžeković in 1932, and "Muri Massanga - the Man Who Conquered the World" by Mladen Horvat in 1927, with the latter even printed in Germany as "Der Neger Muri" ("The Black Man Muri"). Josip Smolčić used the pseudonym Aldion Degal to publish several novels: "Atomska raketa" ("The Atomic Rocket") in 1939, "Zrake smrti" ("The Death Rays") in 1932 and "Smaragdni skarabej" ("The Emerald Scarab") in 1938. "Majstor Omega osvaja svijet" ("Master Omega Conquers the World"), serialised in 1940 and signed by "Stan Rager" (a pseudonym for Stanko Radovanović and Zvonimir Furtinger) was also popular.

After World War II (1950 - 1975)
During World War II, there was little room for publishing any literature, with Croatia ultimately ending up in political turmoil. As soon as the situation stabilised, the genre started recovering, first through publishing science fiction works from USA and Soviet Union, and then works by one of the aforementioned authors - Zvonimir Furtinger - who began a tandem with Mladen Bjažić and published several novels over the course of a decade, starting in 1959.

A wide spectrum of topics can be gleaned from the titles alone: "Osvajač 2 se ne javlja" ("Conqueror Two Not Responding") in 1959, "Svemirska nevjesta" ("The Space Bride"), “Varamunga – tajanstveni grad" ("Varamunga – the Mysterious City"), the young adult novel "Zagonetni stroj profesora Kružića" ("The Mysterious Machine of Professor Kružić") in 1960, "Mrtvi se vraćaju" ("The Dead Return") in 1965, "Ništa bez Božene" ("Nothing Without Božena"- actually an extended version of "Professor Kružić") in 1970 . Topics ranged from aliens, cosmic disasters, AI, matter replication and so on. Bjažić and Furtinger reached high levels of popularity, basically paving the way for the subsequent growth of not only SF in Croatia, but also within Yugoslavia as a whole.

As opposed to more or less classic, hard(er) SF, Angelo Ritig wrote two novels: "Sasvim neobično buđenje" ("A Quite Unusual Awakening") in 1961 and "Ljubav u neboderu" ("Love in a Skyscraper") in 1965, which were more aimed at psychology and character development.

Years of Sirius (1976 - 1989)
1976 was a crucial year for Croatian and Yugoslav science fiction. This year brought two events that set the tone for the genre in the whole region for the next few decades. The first one was the establishment of SFera, the science fiction fan club in Zagreb. The second was the founding of Sirius, a magazine that published science fiction stories mostly originating in the USA and the United Kingdom, but occasionally picking the best works from other countries, mainly - but not exclusively - the Soviet Union.

Sirius was published by Vjesnik, the central news and magazine company in Croatia. Vjesnik had a large number of different titles under its roof, from various entertainment, TV, enigmatic magazines, through issues that specialized in various hobbies and all the way to pulp genre literature like westerns and love or crime stories. The first editor of Sirius, effectively its founder, was Borivoj Jurković, who held the position for several years.

At its peak, Sirius reached a circulation of nearly 40,000 copies (for comparison, Yugoslavia had a population of around 20 million), making it the third largest science fiction magazine in the world at the time. Also, in 1980 and 1984, Sirius was declared the best European SF magazine. During the 13 years of its existence, around 500 stories by Croatian authors were published on its pages. Apart from the aforementioned Bjažić and Furtinger, new names emerged to become the cornerstones of Croatian SF. These included Predrag Raos, Darko Macan, Vera Ivosić-Santo (later known as Veronika Santo), Branko Pihač, Živko Prodanović, Neven Antičević (who went on to become the founder of one of the biggest publishing houses and bookstore chains in Croatia), Radovan Devlić (mainly a comic author), Damir Mikuličić, Darije Đokić and many others.

In parallel to all of this, SFera immediately outgrew its initial role as a SF fan club. In its second year, SFera started its fanzine Parsek. Parsek had a concept similar to western fanzines - which was in turn similar to that of professional magazines - to nurture writers and theoretical work, as well as acting as a bulletin for the club members. Since 1979, SFera has also organized SFeraKon, its annual SF convention, which immediately became the biggest fan and professional gathering in the region.

In addition, SFera established the first literary award in Croatia called "Sfera award". Sfera was first awarded in 1981 and has been active since. In 1996 SFera also started a youth program, organizing a national contest for stories and literary works for all primary and secondary school students in the whole country. Several hundred works per year have been revised, with the latest number of entries going into more than a thousand. Some of the later emerging authors got their first break from this contest.

The Independence War and the Aftermath (1990 - 2000)
The war for independence caused the breakup of Yugoslavia and the collapse of socialist system followed. The fragmentation of the market into six smaller republics (some of which were at war with each other) was detrimental to the publishing projects that became more risky and of questionable profitability. After the initial shock of a war, the science fiction scene soon started showing signs of life. After the 1991 SFeraKon was skipped due to war, the convention resumed in 1992.

Sirius was extinguished in 1989 at a circulation of around 10,000. There was a three year lull and then, in 1992, a small private publisher started what was to be the spiritual heir to Sirius, a magazine called Futura. Its first editor was Vlatko Jurić Kokić (he later joined SFera and even participated in organising SFeraKon), but starting from the 6th issue in spring of 1993 replaced by Krsto A. Mažuranić, one of the founders of Sfera. Since then, Futura has regularly published at least one story written by a Croatian author each month. With a smaller market and unfavorable cultural circumstances, Futura has continuously struggled on the edge of existence with its circulation rarely - if ever - reaching 1000 sold copies and usually going around 500 per issue.

In 1995 - although this was planned for 1994 - SFera started publishing an annual short story collection with exclusively Croatian authors. Initiated by Darko Macan and Tatjana Jambrišak, with Macan being the first editor, the series jump-started the new generation of Croatian writers, some of whom would become well known in the years and even decades to come. Alongside Macan, who had already published stories in Sirius, the most important is Aleksandar Žiljak, a prolific author who had previously published stories in Croatian daily newspapers and magazines, but also SFera's fanzine Parsek.

Several SF conventions and SF clubs were established by the year 2000: Kutikon in Kutina, Essekon in Osijek (Essek being the Hungarian name for the city), RiKon in Rijeka (organised by the Aurora club) and Istrakon in Pazin (organised by the Albus club).

21st century (2001 onward)
In 2003, SFera took another step forward, starting to publish author anthologies under the joint name "Biblioteka SFera". Twelve anthologies were published in three years. Those anthologies represented the previous 10-15 years of their authors’ work and served as the cornerstone of Croatian science fiction of that decade.

The year 2006 brought "Ad Astra - an Anthology of Croatian Science Fiction Stories 1976-2006", gathering 30 stories by 30 authors published in the past three decades.

Fanzines also started to flourish with Prime (by Aurora), SFemir and several others. Additionally, in 2002 the Istrakon crew started publishing their own collection of miniature stories (up to 1000 words). The same year the Festival of Fantastic Literature was established, also taking place in the city of Pazin, publishing their story collection every year from 2006. Another convention emerged in 2006 - Liburnicon in Opatija.

After 30 years of having a single award for national science fiction literature, a second award was established in Rijeka by the "3. zmaj" SF club ("The Third Dragon", a successor to Aurora). Both the SFERA and Artefakt for several categories continue to be awarded every year.

New fandom and semi-professional groups have emerged since 2010: in Slavonski Brod the SF group "Orion" came into being with a convention called "Marsonicon" (after Marsonia, the old Roman name of the city), a series of Croatian and regional SF annual collection series titled "Marsonic", started in 2012, and a fanzine named "Svemirski Brod" in 2013. By the end of the decade, the city of Split followed suit with FantaSTikon and one more series of annual collections of Croatian science fiction in print.

In 2020, eight years after the first Croatian Eurocon, the second was held in Rijeka along with Rikon, dubbed Futuricon. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it was held mostly on-line with lectures, talks, panels and other program items broadcast through Discord and other networks.

A project started by a small publisher named Hangar 7, was another continuation: that of the never forgotten Sirius. The first issue of Sirius B saw the light of day in 2011 and continued with the old concept: mostly translated foreign stories, with most, if not all, coming from the English-speaking world - due to scarcity of funds needed for translating from other languages, this was the only option - and the occasional story by Croatian authors.

In 2019 a different kind of project emerged: Alienus publishing, based on self-sufficiency. The idea is that the full profit of a book is directed towards publishing subsequent books and the work on publishing a new book starts only once there are sufficient funds.

Films

 * Izbavitelj (1977)
 * Visitors from the Galaxy (1981)
 * Infection (2003)
 * Reptiloid (2013)
 * Moj dida je pao s Marsa (2019)
 * Slice of Life (2019)

Awards

 * SFERA Award
 * Artefakt

Magazines

 * Sirius (1976 - 1989)
 * Futura (1992 - 2005)
 * Ubiq
 * Sirius B
 * Morina kutija

Conventions

 * SFeraKon (http://sferakon.org/)
 * IstraKon (https://web.archive.org/web/20161101121604/http://www.istrakon.hr/)
 * RiKon (http://www.3zmaj.hr/rikon/ )
 * Liburnicon (former Abbacon) (http://www.liburnicon.org )
 * FantaSTikon
 * Krakon
 * Isle of Wonders

Societies

 * SFera (http://www.sfera.hr)
 * 3. Zmaj (http://www.3zmaj.hr)
 * U.R.S.A. Maior (http://www.medvjed.com)
 * U.S.S. Croatia (http://www.usscroatia.hr)
 * Mos Croatia Spaceport (https://web.archive.org/web/20110927094801/http://www.starwars.hr/)
 * Ognjeni Mač (https://web.archive.org/web/20160111002037/http://larp.hr/)
 * Klub Titan Atlas (http://klubtitanatlas.hr/)

Fanzines

 * Parsek (http://parsek.sfera.hr)
 * Via Galactica (http://viagalactica.com)
 * NOSF (http://nosf.net)
 * Eridan (http://www.3zmaj.hr/eridan/)
 * The Void Fanzin (http://thevoidfanzin.wordpress.com/)

title: Croatian science fiction


text:
Inclusive fitness

In evolutionary biology, inclusive fitness is one of two metrics of evolutionary success as defined by W. D. Hamilton in 1964:

 * Personal fitness is the number of offspring that an individual begets (regardless of who rescues/rears/supports them)
 * Inclusive fitness is the number of offspring equivalents that an individual rears, rescues or otherwise supports through its behaviour (regardless of who begets them)

An individual's own child, who carries one half of the individual's genes, is defined as one offspring equivalent. A sibling's child, who will carry one-quarter of the individual's genes, is 1/2 offspring equivalent. Similarly, a cousin's child, who has 1/16 of the individual's genes, is 1/8 offspring equivalent.

From a gene's point of view, evolutionary success ultimately depends on leaving behind the maximum number of copies of itself in the population. Prior to Hamilton's work, it was generally assumed that genes only achieved this through the number of viable offspring produced by the individual organism they occupied. However, this overlooked a wider consideration of a gene's success, most clearly in the case of the social insects where the vast majority of individuals do not produce (their own) offspring.

Overview
The British evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton showed mathematically that, because other members of a population may share one's genes, a gene can also increase its evolutionary success by indirectly promoting the reproduction and survival of other individuals who also carry that gene. This is variously called "kin theory", "kin selection theory" or "inclusive fitness theory". The most obvious category of such individuals is close genetic relatives, and where these are concerned, the application of inclusive fitness theory is often more straightforwardly treated via the narrower kin selection theory. Hamilton's theory, alongside reciprocal altruism, is considered one of the two primary mechanisms for the evolution of social behaviors in natural species and a major contribution to the field of sociobiology, which holds that some behaviors can be dictated by genes, and therefore can be passed to future generations and may be selected for as the organism evolves.

Belding's ground squirrel provides an example; it gives an alarm call to warn its local group of the presence of a predator. By emitting the alarm, it gives its own location away, putting itself in more danger. In the process, however, the squirrel may protect its relatives within the local group (along with the rest of the group). Therefore, if the effect of the trait influencing the alarm call typically protects the other squirrels in the immediate area, it will lead to the passing on of more copies of the alarm call trait in the next generation than the squirrel could leave by reproducing on its own. In such a case natural selection will increase the trait that influences giving the alarm call, provided that a sufficient fraction of the shared genes include the gene(s) predisposing to the alarm call.

Synalpheus regalis, a eusocial shrimp, is an organism whose social traits meet the inclusive fitness criterion. The larger defenders protect the young juveniles in the colony from outsiders. By ensuring the young's survival, the genes will continue to be passed on to future generations.

Inclusive fitness is more generalized than strict kin selection, which requires that the shared genes are identical by descent. Inclusive fitness is not limited to cases where "kin" ('close genetic relatives') are involved.

Hamilton's rule
Hamilton's rule was originally derived in the framework of neighbour modulated fitness, where the fitness of a focal individual is considered to be modulated by the actions of its neighbours. This is the inverse of inclusive fitness where we consider how a focal individual modulates the fitness of its neighbours. However, taken over the entire population, these two approaches are equivalent to each other so long as fitness remains linear in trait value. A simple derivation of Hamilton's rule can be gained via the price equation as follows. If an infinite population is assumed, such that any non-selective effects can be ignored, the price equation can be written as:

 * $$\bar{w}\Delta{\bar{z}} = \operatorname{cov}(w_i, z_i)$$

Where $$z$$ represents trait value and $$w$$ represents fitness, either taken for an individual $$i$$ or averaged over the entire population. If fitness is linear in trait value, the fitness for an individual $$i$$ can be written as:

 * $$w_i = \alpha + (-c) z_i + b z_n$$

Where $$\alpha$$ is the component of an individual's fitness which is independent of trait value, $$-c$$ parameterizes the effect of individual $$i$$'s phenotype on its own fitness (written negative, by convention, to represent a fitness cost), $$z_n$$ is the average trait value of individual $$i$$'s neighbours, and $$b$$ parameterizes the effect of individual $$i$$'s neighbours on its fitness (written positive, by convention, to represent a fitness benefit). Substituting into the price equation then gives:

 * $$\bar{w} \Delta{\bar{z}} = \operatorname{cov}(\alpha -c z_i + b z_{n}, z_i) = \operatorname{cov}(\alpha, z_i) - c\operatorname{cov}(z_i, z_i) + b \operatorname{cov}(z_n, z_i) $$

Since $$\alpha$$ by definition does not covary with $$z_i$$, this rearranges to:

 * $$\Delta{\bar{z}} = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(z_i, z_i)}{\bar{w}}(b\frac{\operatorname{cov}(z_n, z_i)}{\operatorname{cov}(z_i, z_i)} - c)$$

Since $$\frac{\operatorname{cov}(z_i, z_i)}{\bar{w}}$$ must, by definition, be greater than 0, it can then be said that that mean trait value will increase ($$\Delta{\bar{z}} > 0$$) when:

 * $$r b > c$$

Giving Hamilton's rule, where relatedness ($$r$$) is a regression coefficient of the form $$\frac{\operatorname{cov}(z_n, z_i)}{\operatorname{cov}(z_i, z_i)}$$, or $$\frac{\operatorname{cov}(z_n, z_i)}{\operatorname{var}(z_i)}$$. Relatedness here can vary between a value of 1 (only interacting with individuals of the same trait value) and -1 (only interacting with individuals of a [most] different trait value), and will be 0 when all individuals in the population interact with equal likelihood.

Fitness in practice, however, does not tend to be linear in trait value -this would imply an increase to an infinitely large trait value being just as valuable to fitness as a similar increase to a very small trait value. Consequently, to apply Hamilton's rule to biological systems the conditions under which fitness can be approximate to being linear in trait value must first be found. There are two main methods used to approximate fitness as being linear in trait value; performing a partial regression (partial least squares regression) with respect to both the focal individual's trait value and its neighbours average trait value, or taking a first order Taylor series approximation of fitness with respect to trait value. Performing a partial regression requires minimal assumptions, but only provides a statistical relationship as opposed to a mechanistic one, and cannot be extrapolated beyond the dataset that it was generated from. Linearizing via a Taylor series approximation, however, provides a powerful mechanistic relationship, but requires the assumption that evolution proceeds in sufficiently small mutational steps that the difference in trait value between an individual and its neighbours is close to 0 (in accordance with Fisher's geometric model): although in practice this approximation can often still retain predictive power under larger mutational steps.

Gardner et al. (2007) suggest that Hamilton's rule can be applied to multi-locus models, but that it should be done at the point of interpreting theory, rather than the starting point of enquiry. They suggest that one should "use standard population genetics, game theory, or other methodologies to derive a condition for when the social trait of interest is favored by selection and then use Hamilton's rule as an aid for conceptualizing this result". However, it is now becoming increasingly popular to use adaptive dynamics (evolutionary invasion analysis) approaches to bridge this gap and gain selection conditions which are directly interpretable with respect to Hamilton's rule.

Altruism
The concept serves to explain how natural selection can perpetuate altruism. If there is an "altruism gene" (or complex of genes) that influences an organism's behavior to be helpful and protective of relatives and their offspring, this behavior also increases the proportion of the altruism gene in the population, because relatives are likely to share genes with the altruist due to common descent. In formal terms, if such a complex of genes arises, Hamilton's rule (rbc) specifies the selective criteria (in terms of cost, benefit and relatedness) for such a trait to increase in frequency in the population. Hamilton noted that inclusive fitness theory does not by itself predict that a species will necessarily evolve such altruistic behaviors, since an opportunity or context for interaction between individuals is a more primary and necessary requirement in order for any social interaction to occur in the first place. As Hamilton put it, "Altruistic or selfish acts are only possible when a suitable social object is available. In this sense behaviours are conditional from the start." In other words, whilst inclusive fitness theory specifies a set of necessary criteria for the evolution of altruistic traits, it does not specify a sufficient condition for their evolution in any given species. More primary necessary criteria include the existence of gene complexes for altruistic traits in gene pool, as mentioned above, and especially that "a suitable social object is available", as Hamilton noted. The American evolutionary biologist Paul W. Sherman gives a fuller discussion of Hamilton's latter point:

"To understand any species' pattern of nepotism, two questions about individuals' behavior must be considered: (1) what is reproductively ideal?, and (2) what is socially possible? With his formulation of "inclusive fitness," Hamilton suggested a mathematical way of answering (1). Here I suggest that the answer to (2) depends on demography, particularly its spatial component, dispersal, and its temporal component, mortality. Only when ecological circumstances affecting demography consistently make it socially possible will nepotism be elaborated according to what is reproductively ideal. For example, if dispersing is advantageous and if it usually separates relatives permanently, as in many birds, on the rare occasions when nestmates or other kin live in proximity, they will not preferentially cooperate. Similarly, nepotism will not be elaborated among relatives that have infrequently coexisted in a population's or a species' evolutionary history. If an animal's life history characteristicsusually preclude the existence of certain relatives, that is if kin are usually unavailable, the rare coexistence of such kin will not occasion preferential treatment. For example, if reproductives generally die soon after zygotes are formed, as in many temperate zone insects, the unusual individual that survives to interact with its offspring is not expected to behave parentally."

The occurrence of sibling cannibalism in several species underlines the point that inclusive fitness theory should not be understood to simply predict that genetically related individuals will inevitably recognize and engage in positive social behaviors towards genetic relatives. Only in species that have the appropriate traits in their gene pool, and in which individuals typically interacted with genetic relatives in the natural conditions of their evolutionary history, will social behavior potentially be elaborated, and consideration of the evolutionarily typical demographic composition of grouping contexts of that species is thus a first step in understanding how selection pressures upon inclusive fitness have shaped the forms of its social behavior. Richard Dawkins gives a simplified illustration:

"If families [genetic relatives] happen to go around in groups, this fact provides a useful rule of thumb for kin selection: 'care for any individual you often see'.""

Evidence from a variety of species  including primates and other social mammals suggests that contextual cues (such as familiarity) are often significant proximate mechanisms mediating the expression of altruistic behavior, regardless of whether the participants are always in fact genetic relatives or not. This is nevertheless evolutionarily stable since selection pressure acts on the typical conditions, not on the rare occasions where actual genetic relatedness differs from that normally encountered. Inclusive fitness theory thus does not imply that organisms evolve to direct altruism towards genetic relatives. Many popular treatments do however promote this interpretation, as illustrated in a review:

"[M]any misunderstandings persist. In many cases, they result from conflating "coefficient of relatedness" and "proportion of shared genes," which is a short step from the intuitively appealing—but incorrect—interpretation that "animals tend to be altruistic toward those with whom they share a lot of genes." These misunderstandings don't just crop up occasionally; they are repeated in many writings, including undergraduate psychology textbooks—most of them in the field of social psychology, within sections describing evolutionary approaches to altruism. (Park 2007, p860)"

Such misunderstandings of inclusive fitness' implications for the study of altruism, even amongst professional biologists utilizing the theory, are widespread, prompting prominent theorists to regularly attempt to highlight and clarify the mistakes. An example of attempted clarification is West et al. (2010):

"In his original papers on inclusive fitness theory, Hamilton pointed out a sufficiently high relatedness to favour altruistic behaviours could accrue in two ways—kin discrimination or limited dispersal. There is a huge theoretical literature on the possible role of limited dispersal, as well as experimental evolution tests of these models. However, despite this, it is still sometimes claimed that kin selection requires kin discrimination. Furthermore, a large number of authors appear to have implicitly or explicitly assumed that kin discrimination is the only mechanism by which altruistic behaviours can be directed towards relatives... [T]here is a huge industry of papers reinventing limited dispersal as an explanation for cooperation. The mistakes in these areas seem to stem from the incorrect assumption that kin selection or indirect fitness benefits require kin discrimination (misconception 5), despite the fact that Hamilton pointed out the potential role of limited dispersal in his earliest papers on inclusive fitness theory."

Green-beard effect
As well as interactions in reliable contexts of genetic relatedness, altruists may also have some way to recognize altruistic behavior in unrelated individuals and be inclined to support them. As Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, this must be distinguished from the green-beard effect.

The green-beard effect is the act of a gene (or several closely linked genes), that:
 * 1) Produces a phenotype.
 * 2) Allows recognition of that phenotype in others.
 * 3) Causes the individual to preferentially treat other individuals with the same gene.

The green-beard effect was originally a thought experiment by Hamilton in his publications on inclusive fitness in 1964, although it hadn't yet been observed. As of today, it has been observed in few species. Its rarity is probably due to its susceptibility to 'cheating' whereby individuals can gain the trait that confers the advantage, without the altruistic behavior. This normally would occur via the crossing over of chromosomes which happens frequently, often rendering the green-beard effect a transient state. However, Wang et al. has shown in one of the species where the effect is common (fire ants), recombination cannot occur due to a large genetic transversion, essentially forming a supergene. This, along with homozygote inviability at the green-beard loci allows for the extended maintenance of the green-beard effect.

Equally, cheaters may not be able to invade the green-beard population if the mechanism for preferential treatment and the phenotype are intrinsically linked. In budding yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), the dominant allele FLO1 is responsible for flocculation (self-adherence between cells) which helps protect them against harmful substances such as ethanol. While 'cheater' yeast cells occasionally find their way into the biofilm-like substance that is formed from FLO1 expressing yeast, they cannot invade as the FLO1 expressing yeast will not bind to them in return, and thus the phenotype is intrinsically linked to the preference.

Parent–offspring conflict and optimization
Early writings on inclusive fitness theory (including Hamilton 1964) used K in place of B/C. Thus Hamilton's rule was expressed as

$$K> 1/r$$ is the necessary and sufficient condition for selection for altruism.

Where B is the gain to the beneficiary, C is the cost to the actor and r is the number of its own offspring equivalents the actor expects in one of the offspring of the beneficiary. r is either called the coefficient of relatedness or coefficient of relationship, depending on how it is computed. The method of computing has changed over time, as has the terminology. It is not clear whether or not changes in the terminology followed changes in computation.

Robert Trivers (1974) defined "parent-offspring conflict" as any case where

$$1<K<2$$

i.e., K is between 1 and 2. The benefit is greater than the cost but is less than twice the cost. In this case, the parent would wish the offspring to behave as if r is 1 between siblings, although it is actually presumed to be 1/2 or closely approximated by 1/2. In other words, a parent would wish its offspring to give up ten offspring in order to raise 11 nieces and nephews. The offspring, when not manipulated by the parent, would require at least 21 nieces and nephews to justify the sacrifice of 10 of its own offspring.

The parent is trying to maximize its number of grandchildren, while the offspring is trying to maximize the number of its own offspring equivalents (via offspring and nieces and nephews) it produces. If the parent cannot manipulate the offspring and therefore loses in the conflict, the grandparents with the fewest grandchildren seem to be selected for. In other words, if the parent has no influence on the offspring's behavior, grandparents with fewer grandchildren increase in frequency in the population.

By extension, parents with the fewest offspring will also increase in frequency. This seems to go against Ronald Fisher's "Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection" which states that the change in fitness over the course of a generation equals the variance in fitness at the beginning of the generation. Variance is defined as the square of a quantity—standard deviation —and as a square must always be positive (or zero). That would imply that e fitness could never decrease as time passes. This goes along with the intuitive idea that lower fitness cannot be selected for. During parent-offspring conflict, the number of stranger equivalents reared per offspring equivalents reared is going down. Consideration of this phenomenon caused Orlove (1979) and Grafen (2006) to say that nothing is being maximized.

According to Trivers, if Sigmund Freud had tried to explain intra-family conflict after Hamilton instead of before him, he would have attributed the motivation for the conflict and for the castration complex to resource allocation issues rather than to sexual jealousy.

Incidentally, when k=1 or k=2, the average number of offspring per parent stays constant as time goes by. When k 2 then the average number of offspring per parent increases as time goes by.

The term "gene" can refer to a locus (location) on an organism's DNA—a section that codes for a particular trait. Alternative versions of the code at that location are called "alleles." If there are two alleles at a locus, one of which codes for altruism and the other for selfishness, an individual who has one of each is said to be a heterozygote at that locus. If the heterozygote uses half of its resources raising its own offspring and the other half helping its siblings raise theirs, that condition is called codominance. If there is codominance the "2" in the above argument is exactly 2. If by contrast, the altruism allele is more dominant, then the 2 in the above would be replaced by a number smaller than 2. If the selfishness allele is the more dominant, something greater than 2 would replace the 2.

Opposing view
A 2010 paper by Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and E. O. Wilson suggested that standard natural selection theory is superior to inclusive fitness theory, stating that the interactions between cost and benefit cannot be explained only in terms of relatedness. This, Nowak said, makes Hamilton's rule at worst superfluous and at best ad hoc. Gardner in turn was critical of the paper, describing it as "a really terrible article", and along with other co-authors has written a reply, submitted to Nature. The disagreement stems from a long history of confusion over what Hamilton's rule represents. Hamilton's rule gives the direction of mean phenotypic change (directional selection) so long as fitness is linear in phenotype, and the utility of Hamilton's rule is simply a reflection of when it is suitable to consider fitness as being linear in phenotype. The primary (and strictest) case is when evolution proceeds in very small mutational steps. Under such circumstances Hamilton's rule then emerges as the result of taking a first order Taylor series approximation of fitness with regards to phenotype. This assumption of small mutational steps (otherwise known as δ-weak selection) is often made on the basis of Fisher's geometric model and underpins much of modern evolutionary theory.

In work prior to Nowak et al. (2010), various authors derived different versions of a formula for $$r$$, all designed to preserve Hamilton's rule. Orlove noted that if a formula for $$r$$ is defined so as to ensure that Hamilton's rule is preserved, then the approach is by definition ad hoc. However, he published an unrelated derivation of the same formula for $$r$$ – a derivation designed to preserve two statements about the rate of selection – which on its own was similarly ad hoc. Orlove argued that the existence of two unrelated derivations of the formula for $$r$$ reduces or eliminates the ad hoc nature of the formula, and of inclusive fitness theory as well. The derivations were demonstrated to be unrelated by corresponding parts of the two identical formulae for $$r$$ being derived from the genotypes of different individuals. The parts that were derived from the genotypes of different individuals were terms to the right of the minus sign in the covariances in the two versions of the formula for $$r$$. By contrast, the terms left of the minus sign in both derivations come from the same source. In populations containing only two trait values, it has since been shown that $$r$$ is in fact Sewall Wright's coefficient of relationship.

Engles (1982) suggested that the c/b ratio be considered as a continuum of this behavioral trait rather than discontinuous in nature. From this approach fitness transactions can be better observed because there is more to what is happening to affect an individual's fitness than just losing and gaining.

title: Inclusive fitness


text:
Blood Feast

Blood Feast is a 1963 American splatter film. It was composed, shot, and directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis, written by Allison Louise Downe from an idea by Lewis and David F. Freidman, and stars Mal Arnold, William Kerwin, Connie Mason, and Lyn Bolton. The plot focuses on a psychopathic food caterer named Fuad Ramses (Arnold) who kills women so that he can include their body parts in his meals and perform sacrifices to his "Egyptian goddess" Ishtar.

Blood Feast is considered the first splatter film, a sub-genre of horror noted for its graphic depictions of on-screen gore. It was highly successful, grossing $4 million against its minuscule $24,500 budget, while receiving poor reviews from critics, who criticized it as amateurish and vulgar. The film was followed by a belated sequel, Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat, in 2002.

Plot
A woman comes home to her Miami Beach apartment and hears of a recent murder in Rogers Park. She herself is then murdered while taking a bath. Before leaving, the killer hacks off her leg above the knee with a machete and bags it. A copy of a book titled Ancient Weird Religious Rites is seen near the body.

At the police station the next morning, Detective Pete Thornton consults with the chief of the homicide bureau about the killings, who says that the killer follows a pattern of mutilating his victims by removing their limbs and organs. Elsewhere in town, Dorothy Fremont hires a caterer named Fuad Ramses to arrange a dinner party for her daughter, Suzette. Ramses – who is the serial murderer – tells Mrs. Fremont he will prepare an ancient Egyptian feast for the affair. Mrs. Fremont is delighted, as Suzette is interested in Egyptology. After Mrs. Fremont leaves Ramses' store, he goes to a back room, where he has enshrined a statue of the goddess Ishtar. Ramses is preparing a "blood feast" – a stew made from his victims' blood and body parts intended to resurrect Ishtar.

Later that day, Thornton tells the chief he interviewed the latest victim's acquaintances and that she was a book club member. That evening, teenagers Tony and Marcy are on a nearby beach. Ramses arrives, knocks Tony unconscious, and removes Marcy's brain from her skull. Thornton and the chief arrive on the scene but cannot get any useful information from a hysterical Tony. They later question Marcy's mother, who tells them Marcy belonged to a book club. Sometime later, Ramses stakes out a motel. He knocks on a woman's door and attacks her when she answers, ripping her tongue out as another ingredient to his "blood feast".

Suzette attends an Egyptian studies lecture at the local university with her boyfriend, Detective Thornton. The lecturer, Dr. Flanders, tells them about the pharaohs Ramses I and Ramses II and the cult of Ishtar that thrived during their rule five thousand years prior. He describes a ritual in which women were sacrificed to the goddess on an altar, their body parts prepared and served as dishes in the feast; this was said to cause Ishtar to be reborn. After the lecture, Suzette and Thornton learn that a victim has been found near death and taken to a hospital. Thornton drives Suzette home and rushes to the hospital. The victim, identified as Janet Blake, recounts her attacker saying something that sounded like "Etar" and dies.

Ramses receives a letter from Suzette's friend Trudy Sanders, requesting a copy of Ancient Weird Religious Rites he advertised in the newspaper; he kidnaps Trudy that evening. The next day, Trudy awakens in Ramses's back room. Ramses lashes Trudy with a scourge, collecting her blood in a silver chalice. Suzette informs Thornton that Fuad Ramses will be catering her dinner party and serving an authentic Egyptian feast in honor of Ishtar. Noting the similarity between the name Ishtar and the word "Etar", Thornton calls Dr. Flanders and learns that Ramses is the author of Ancient Weird Religious Rites. Deducing Ramses to be the killer, Thornton and the police race to Ramses' store, where they discover the Ishtar shrine, Trudy's body, and other human remains. The police head to the Fremont house to arrest Ramses and stop the guests from partaking in the feast.

Ramses arrives at the dinner party and asks Suzette to help him make the feast "more authentic." He has Suzette lie on a kitchen countertop and tells her to close her eyes and offer a prayer to Ishtar. As he raises his machete to decapitate her, Mrs. Fremont enters the kitchen, and he flees. The police chase Ramses through a dump, and he climbs into the back of a garbage truck. The unaware truck driver turns on the trash compactor, crushing Ramses. Thornton explains to the chief how he deduced the killer's identity and says Ramses must have kept a list of people who requested his book as potential victims. The detectives return to their headquarters to file a report; elsewhere, the statue of Ishtar sheds tears of blood.

Cast

 * William Kerwin as Detective Pete Thornton (credited as Thomas Wood)
 * Mal Arnold as Fuad Ramses
 * Connie Mason as Suzette Fremont
 * Lyn Bolton as Mrs. Dorothy Fremont
 * Scott H. Hall as Police Chief Frank
 * Christy Foushee as Trudy Sanders (credited as Toni Calvert)
 * Ashlyn Martin as Marcy Franklin
 * Astrid Olson as Motel Victim
 * Sandra Sinclair as Pat Tracey
 * Gene Courtier as Tony
 * Louise Kamp as Janet Blake/Sacrificial Victim
 * Hal Rich as Hospital Doctor
 * Al Golden as Dr. Flanders

Development
The concept for Blood Feast arose in the early 1960s, three years after the release of director Alfred Hitchcock’s horror film Psycho. Lewis, previously a teacher at Mississippi State College, had quit his job in order to enter the film business, and directed several "nudie cutie" films in the early 1960s, produced by David F. Friedman (who would later produce Blood Feast and several other splatter films that Lewis would direct). Lewis had seen Psycho and felt that the film had cheated by showing the results of the murders in the film but not the action, because Hitchcock could not risk getting turned down by theaters. The main idea behind Blood Feast was that bathtubs of blood would be spilled in an effort to portray an Egyptian meal cooked with the bodies of virgins and the tongue of a woman being ripped out of a woman's mouth.

Filming
Filming took place in Miami, Florida over a period of four days, with a budget of $24,000. Director Lewis wanted a realistic prop for the scene where a woman gets her tongue ripped out; in order to accommodate this, a sheep's tongue was imported from Tampa Bay and used in the scene. All other limbs and organs used during production were imported locally. Lewis filmed Blood Feast in color in order to show the red blood used in the film.

Release
Distributed by Box Office Spectaculars, the film was released July 6, 1963 at the Bellevue Drive-In in Bellevue (now Peoria) Illinois. The film was advertised as Egyptian Blood Feast at drive-ins in New York.

Producer Friedman came up with some publicity stunts for the film, such as giving theater-goers "vomit bags" and intentionally taking out an injunction against the film in Sarasota, Florida, in order to gain publicity. Both were very effective and generated more interest in the film, which became highly successful, grossing $4 million against its minuscule $24,500 budget.

Censorship
In the United Kingdom, the film faced censorship issues, eventually being banned and added to the infamous "video nasty" list. It was given a DVD release in 2001 with 23 seconds of cuts. In 2005, the film was finally released uncut with an 18 certificate after more than 40 years of being banned.

Home media
Blood Feast was first released on VHS home video by Continental Video in the 1980s. It also received VHS and DVD releases by Something Weird Video in the late 1990s.

In 2017, Arrow Video released the film in a DVD and Blu-ray double pack.

Critical reception
Blood Feast received generally negative reviews. Variety declared the film to be a "totally inept shocker", "incredibly crude and unprofessional from start to finish" and "an insult even to the most puerile and salacious of audiences". The review labeled the entire production a "fiasco", calling the screenplay (credited to Louise Downe) "senseless", and the acting "amateurish". Of Lewis' direction, camerawork, and musical composition, the review judged that he had "failed dismally on all three counts". The Los Angeles Times described Blood Feast as "a blot on the American film industry." Stephen King has said that it is "the worst horror movie" he has ever seen.

In response to Variety ' s criticism of the film, Friedman said, "Herschell and I have often wondered who told the Variety scribe we were taking ourselves seriously".

Jerry Renshaw of Austin Chronicle liked the film, but criticized the film's poor acting and noticeably low budget. Renshaw concluded his review by calling the film "offensive, nasty, shabby, and revolting, but also great fun, if you can stand the sight of guts". On his website Fantastic Movie Musings and Ramblings, Dave Sindelar panned the film, criticizing the acting and stating that director Lewis "manages to make his movies look like home movies without giving them that air of verisimilitude that would make them believable". Dennis Schwartz of Ozus' World Movie Reviews gave Blood Feast a C grade, stating that it was "one of those really bad films that some take pleasure laughing at and others sneering at and others doing both". Allmovie's Fred Beldin wrote, "The plot is threadbare, the acting is on a par with the clumsiest of high school plays and the direction is static and uninvolving. Nevertheless, this is one of the important releases in film history, ushering in a new acceptance of explicit violence that was obviously just waiting to be exploited".

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 38% based on 13 reviews, with a weighted average rating of 4.48/10.

Significance
Blood Feast immediately became notorious for its explicit gore and violence. It is often cited erroneously as one of the first films to show people dying with their eyes open (earlier examples include D. W. Griffith's 1909 film The Country Doctor, William A. Wellman's 1931 film The Public Enemy and 1960's Psycho).

Fuad Ramses was described by author Christopher Wayne Curry – in his book A Taste of Blood: The Films of Herschell Gordon Lewis – as "the original machete-wielding madman" and the forerunner to similar characters in Friday the 13th and Halloween. Lewis said of the film, "I've often referred to Blood Feast as a Walt Whitman poem. It's no good, but it was the first of its type." "One of the all-time greats," enthused Cramps singer and horror aficionado Lux Interior. "It was the first gore movie… Now, it looks kind of funny, but it's still really sick."

Blood Feast is the first part of what the director's fans call "The Blood Trilogy". Rounding out the trilogy are Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964) and Color Me Blood Red (1965). After the third, producer Friedman said, "I think that for now we're going to abandon making any more 'super blood and gore' movies, since so many of our contemporaries are launching similar productions, causing a risk that the market will quickly reach a saturation point."

Literature
Lewis wrote a novelization of Blood Feast to coincide with the release of the film. The novel, which features significantly different versions of central characters Fuad Ramses, Pete Thornton and Suzette Fremont, has a much more humorous tone than the film and is set in Chicago rather than Miami. It was reprinted by FantaCo Enterprises in the 1980s.

A black-and-white two-issue comic book adaptation of the film was published by Eternity Comics in 1991. It was written by Jack Herman, penciled by Stan Timmons and inked by Mike Matthew.

Sequels
Blood Feast was the first part of Lewis' "Blood Trilogy", with the others being Two Thousand Maniacs! and Color Me Blood Red.

A sequel, Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat, was released in 2002. It takes place years after the first film, with Fuad's grandson following in his grandfather's footsteps. It marked the first time Lewis and Friedman had worked together on a film in 36 years.

Blood Diner (1987) was produced with the intention of making it a "spiritual sequel" to Blood Feast.

Remake
A remake directed by Marcel Walz and starring Robert Rusler as Fuad Ramses, was given a limited theatrical release on June 23, 2017.

title: Blood Feast


text:
Catz

Catz is a former commune in the Manche department in Normandy in north-western France. On 1 January 2019, it was merged into the commune Carentan-les-Marais.

title: Catz


text:
Talk:Canadian Firearms Registry

Untitled
The budget figures are contradicted by the reference #1. The $66.5M figure is the budget for the entire Canadian Firearms Program, of which the registry is only a small part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.119.4 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cost Overruns
I have deleted the following, not because its not true (it probably is), but because it hasn't been properly cited (November 2008 and May 2008). I leave it here in case someone wants to find cites for it and put it back

--76.10.163.221 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Auditor General's report found other significant problems with the way the project had been handled. These included significant questions around the financial management of the project. In particular, the report stated that estimated project costs often excluded project costs incurred by other agencies, such as the RCMP and provincial governments, giving a false impression of real cost. Problems were likewise reported with how funds were requested from Parliament, with 70% of funds requested through "supplementary estimates," a method intended for unanticipated expenditures and requiring only a one-line statement to Parliament on the purpose of the request . In comparison, only 10% of funds for all other programs in the department were requested in this way over the same period.
 * something else that could probably use looking into is the indirectly related income and savings made possible by the gun registry

I'm boldly removing the following:

Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now estimate the program cost at $2 billion.[citation needed]

That's a very extraordinary claim, and if the CBC has reported it it should be simple to have a citation. So until someone finds the citation I think it should simply not be there.91.37.254.56 (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The citation is still available online, but the sentence isn't wholly accurate. It was Radio Canada's (CBC) Zone Libre who obtained the documents.
 * Here you are: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213.html --99.251.230.233 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian gun registry
2 BILLION DOLLARS (according to CBC) to do what 50 guys with Excel could do... this is approximately 40million per person :)

A person giving his genuine opinion on Canadian gun registration. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to express your personal opinion. Thue 23:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Could have been speedy deleted.  RickK 23:16, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It sounds very genuine, so I wanted to give him a chance to read our reasoning before deleting. Thue 23:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This needs to be voted on? Delete. Wyllium 23:20, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
 * Replace with redirect. The present content is far from a neutral point of view, and we already have a good article on Gun politics in Canada. I'm going to move the present content to Talk:Canadian gun registry; those interested in continuing this dicussion should refer to that page. I'm going to replace Canadian gun registry with redirect to Gun politics in Canada. Perhaps User:24.244.75.127 might be interested in working on that article, after familiarizing himself with Wikipedia's tradition of a neutral point of view. Dpbsmith 00:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC) On second thought, I'm going to make the article not a pure redirect so that the VfD notice will be visible if the contributor looks for his article. Will make it a redirect when the VfD discussion expires unless there's consensus otherwise. And I've placed this note on User_Talk:24.244.75.127:
 * Your essay on Canadian gun registry was well written, and I hope you will consider continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow encyclopedia articles to be essays presenting personal opinions. Personal opinions can be expressed in your own user page and in the Talk pages articles, but they cannot be articles in themselves. It would violate two Wikipedia policies: first, the policy of a neutral point of view; and second, the policy of "no original research." Your essay was listed in Votes_for_Deletion where you can follow an ongoing discussion.

 * I've replaced your article with a "redirect" to a good article we already have on Gun politics in Canada. This means that people typing in Canadian gun registry will be automatically sent to the Gun politics in Canada article. The discussion in Votes for Deletion is not over. The original text of your article has not actually been deleted, but is preserved in Talk:Canadian gun registry. Dpbsmith 00:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

end of moved discussion

re-redirected
I have added the redirect back to Gun politics in Canada. It looks like some thought went into making this decision quite recently. I realise that the gun registry is a big issue atm so I have added quite a lot of detail and broken the article into sections, so it is east to find the gun registry information. I realise that there is may be an argument for moving the gun registry out into an article of its own, but as gun politics is the longer standing and more heavily edited article I thought it made sense to improve it and stick with the vfd decision that was made. Pasd 16:36, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thought went into redirecting a completely different article than the one you did. The gun registry is perfectly deserving of its own article. - SimonP 03:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unrelated Information Removed
I just removed the following statement from "Use of the Registry":

"Statistics Canada data show that Canada's total violent crime rate fell 2 per cent last year, and has been in decline since 1992. This same data show that the national homicide rate increased 12 per cent to 622 victims last year, after hitting a 36-year-low in 2003."

If you don't see the problem with this statement, may I remind you that the price of gas went up since 1992 - can you also attribute this to gun control?

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV.

--Sheldonc 02:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)-

Unsupported/False statement removed
"It also required gun buyers to take training courses on the safe usage of weapons."

From Gun politics in Canada:

"Legislative provisions between 1977 and 1979 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates for all weapons and provided controls on the selling of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons were prohibited. Applicants for Firearms Acquisition Certificates were required to take a safety course."

Safety courses were in place long before the gun registry. If anybody can prove that the registry somehow extended the reach of these courses, explain how.

It seems as if the article was edited to make the gun registry palatable to the masses. Biased.

--Sheldonc 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Misuse?
From the "Alleged Mis-Use of the Registry", this sounds plausible, but is there any local newspaper articles documenting these claims at all? It sounds as if somebody totally made it up. --Sheldonc 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * look on the web theres several pieces on several gun collectors getting robbed cant rember his name

one guys hiding in the states and we have a warrant to arrest him? only in canaduh.

POV
I am not surprised that there would be a lot of dispoute over content on this page. This is an empitional issue for many people. But we have to remember thet Wikipedia is not a soap box. We should try to present both sides here, not one "correct and unquestionably right" view.

Please see WP:NPOV for more information on writing point-of-view-free articles. Ground Zero | t 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. These sections are very speculative, without any references and probably could be removed. (Probably added by anon users as well) That said, I doubt this article will ever be truly neutral. The program is immensely unpopular. --Sheldonc 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have condensed these two sections. The new sections still make the same point, but not quite so often. Also, it seems pretty clear that they were cut-and-pasted from the OFAH website. The quotations for the most part re-iterated what the text said, much like a news reslease. I have deleted most of the quotations. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a mess of edits just now. An anonymous editor dumped in poorly formatted blocks of text that made no effort to have a neutral point of view. The anon was clearly trying to make an argument: "It must be noted that....", etc. I'm not saying that there isn't material there worth keeping, but that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. It's an encyclopedia. If you want to promote an agenda, please do so elsewhere. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know how to properly format article's according to Wikipedia's liking. However, as the article currently now stands it only gives a superficial "media" level understanding of the Gun Registry. The oft repeated "6,500 hits per day" is never fully understood in the context of the automated hits and never disputed. The accuracy and usefulness of the registry is never questioned. Further, statements by frontline Police officers against the registry are not taken into account. What we end up here is with an article that simply examines the long-gun registry from media sources, who often do not investigate the Government as they should.

Furthermore, the article mentions how many licences were revoked, this something seperate from the long-gun Registry as licences were revoked before the advent of the long-gun registry. This should not be included in an article on the Registry and simply shows the level of understanding the media has of the Registry. The licencing program and the registry have been confused in many articles produced by Canadian journalists. I do not believe that I am "standing on a soapbox" and on the otherhand I believe that the section on the use of the registry only presents one highly flawed view of the Registry. fuddleduddle

I have been watching the changes made to this page and I want to inquire why the "Police use of the Registry exaggerated" section was removed? The linked site was a government webpage explaining the "6,500 hits per day," if you believe that the Government website has some sort of an "agenda" than surely the two police chiefs have an "agenda" as well.

 * The registry check is done automatically along with other searched for information, so the true utility of the registry isn't known - no one has published any figures on how often the registry is checked for reasons specific to firearms offences, etc.Michael Dorosh 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, none of my criticisms above have been addressed so far, as the section on the revocation of licences still exists. Yes, the registry and the licencing programs are administered by the CFC and were part of C-68, but licencing should not be considered part of the long-gun registry considering that firearms licences/certificated were revoked prior to the existance of the long-gun registry. The firearms revocation should be part of an article on the CFC, not the long-gun registry. Fuddleduddle May 31

Dawson College Shooting
The Beretta CX4 Storm rifle can be legally purchased and owned by a civilian in Canada, however because of its legal classification, specific criteria must be met with different configurations of the CX4 Storm rifle. The CX4 Storm rifle as manufactured by Beretta is a semi-automatic, center-fire rifle that has the legal classification of "restricted" in Canada when found in the original factory configuration possessing a barrel length of 422mm. Any person possessing a firearms licence (PAL) with "restricted" licence privileges may purchase this firearm, subject to the approval of the Chief Firearms Officer of the respective province; and in addition the rifle is subject to a more stringent set of rules for possession and use because of its legal classification.In the case of Kimveer Gill, he did have a gun license and it was registered with Canadian gun registry; therefore, he owned the weapon legally under Canadian law. LindaWarheads 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of blurb about innefectivness
Hi, I have removed your blurb, not because I believe it is wrong. Actually I agree with you. What I am saying is that, in it's current form, it contains POV and is not admissable. When adding to an article, also try to steer away from "it is often ponted out" as per Avoid weasel words. I have no problems with the content, just the wording needs to be fixed, perhaps references added, best regards Cavell 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * While I admit that it uses weasel words (it is a work in progress that I was looking to add to) I fail to see how it is POV, perhaps you can point out the specific statement that makes it POV? as for adding references, I am looking for them, but I know this statistic from when I was watching CP24 (a Canadian news channel) about the time of Jane Creba's murder last year.  how about instead of using the weasel words it is often pointed out... to people wishing to commit a crime using a firearm often realize that a registered firearm is easily tracked, so they either do not register the firearm or obtain it illegally.  As for a reference, how about | BBC News specifically where it quotes Gary Mauser (aptly named, lol) ""The handguns being misused are illegal. Nobody thinks banning guns will stop violent crime, and there is no empirical support for gun controls working," he says." although it does interview some rather ludicrous and delusional people also.  or perhaps this site:  which quotes Toronto Police Cheif Julian Fantino "We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.". If the Toronto Police Cheif isn't an authorative enough source on Toronto Crime, I don't know who is.

 * --Jadger 11:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, that looks great lots of references. Maybe you were right about POV I didnt look back to check, but this looks waaaay better anyways. I hope you're gonna add this newer version, Cheers, Cavell 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Citations alone don't make a good article or section. This section should be rewritten as an assessment of the effectiveness or lack thereof of the registry.  Both sides of the debate, and there are two sides, should be represented.  Garry Breitkreuz is also not the best person to quote - he is an MP who is personally opposed to the registry from a party that is opposed to the registry - it's also hosted on gunowners.org, not exactly a NPOV source.  This section appears to cherry-pick arguments on one side of the debate - even the BBC article quoting Mauser contains arguments from both sides, but only one side is quoted.  This section is totally unbalanced and needs to be rewritten or removed altogether - ideally the former.  Blotto adrift 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia says be bold so let's see what you can come up with. and the BBC article uses quotes from the registry supporters that are non-sequiturs. A lot of their points make no sense, there is absolutely no connection between crime rates and gun control. in 2005 there were more than 85 gun related deaths in Toronto, none of them could have been helped by the gun registry.

Also, sources don't have to be NPOV, only articles do. Actually, I earge you to find a NPOV source on practically anything. the purpose of books, essays, reports, etc. is to put forth the point that is being made. the only source that can really truly be NPOV is a dictionary.

--Jadger 08:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I'll see if I can come up with some content to add over the next little while. Your point about NPOV sources is taken - however, there are better sources out there.  For example, Breitkreuz's own MP site has several studies - it would be better to cite them directly than a third-party site with links.  Or direct links to LUFA - the closer you can get to the original source of the study, the more authoritative it is.  In Breitkreuz's case, I believe that he commissioned research by the Library of Parliament - that would be extremely authoritative.  Also, as noted, I feel that the other side of this debate should be represented as well to ensure that the article is as neutral as we can get it.  I'm hoping we can work together to improve this article.

 * Some of the newspaper story links are dead or hit the subscription wall. It would probably be better to just cite the story without the link.

 * The "Alleged mis-use of the registry" and "Security" sections could probably be combined into one, as they cover the same ground. You may be interested in a recent series by the Ottawa Citizen that touched on this subject.

 * Finally, the description of the CAPC as a "a federal lobby group employing paid lobbyists" - is this an appropriate place for this link? Perhaps it would be more appropriate on a separate page for the CAPC.  Also, the link leads to the search page and not to a specific listing of the CAPC's lobby activities (I realise that the database may not be set up for permalinks).  I removed it, because I felt that it wasn't an appropriate summary of the group's activities, the link and because I felt that there was POV in that I have seen this argument used before in a dismissive "they're just a bunch of lobbyists" manner.  You reverted the change, so you obviously feel otherwise.

 * Your comments seem to provide an indication on where you stand on the issue, so I don't imagine you would be too impressed with a section that contained nothing but references from the Coalition for Gun Control going on about how effective the thing is and what a shame it is that it was cancelled. So let's see what we can do here.  Blotto adrift 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know about "a federal lobby group employing paid lobbyists" I don't think I put that in.

 * Your comments seem to provide an indication on where you stand on the issue, so I don't imagine you would be too impressed with a section that contained nothing but references from the Coalition for Gun Control going on about how effective the thing is and what a shame it is that it was cancelled. So let's see what we can do here. um...

 * 1) it wasn't cancelled, the gov't just refuses to prosecute ordinary citizens that perform a little civil disobedience, you don't see all protestors getting arrested do you?
 * 2) I would like to see some examples from the "coalition for gun control" that shows how effective it is.  as the gun registry only works in limited circumstances where a number of criteria have to be met i.e. a) the gun must be registered b) the gun can't be stolen, or else the registry doesn't lead the police anywhere c) an illegal act must be committed with the gun for the registry to come into affect, so claiming it lowers/stops crime is a definite non-sequitur.

 * I am a hunter, and personally own guns, and I have never had the urge to point them at anyone or shoot someone. so why am I not being trusted? it is like assuming that I will do something illegal with it simply because I own it.  all a registry does is turn common citizens into criminals if they don't register.  tell me, would you be in support of mandatory registration of all the knives you own? (including butter knives) as they have just as much potential to kill someone as a gun does.

 * Also, as noted, I feel that the other side of this debate should be represented as well to ensure that the article is as neutral as we can get it. I agree with you, they should be represented, but the faulty logic and non-sequitur reasoning they often (not always) use shouldn't be included, unless they are being critiqued, perhaps a sort of "Pros and Cons" section could be created. Indeed sometimes they have valid points, and those should be added, but it must also be noted that the gun registry couldn't have prevented the death of Jane Creba or any of the other 80+ people murdered with illegal guns last year in TO.

 * If someone wants to commit an illegal act with a gun, why would they register it? that would be like handcuffing yourself and walking into the police station. it only works in cases such as crimes of passion where in a rage a person may grab a gun, or in a fight with someone else. it doesn't stop pre-meditated crimes, or any crime really, it just makes it easier to keep tabs on citizens with guns.

 * --Jadger 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not looking to debate the effectiveness or lack thereof of the registry or gun control.

 * What would you suggest for a representation of the pro-registry side? I would suggest the Coalition for Gun Control, as they seem to be the most visible and vocal groups in favour.  Happy to hear other suggestions.  And basically, all I'm suggesting here is that the article say something like group A (including organisations/individuals B, C and D) is against the registry for the following reasons.  Group E (including organisations/individuals F, G and H) is in favour of the registry for the following reasons.  People may not agree with arguments from one side or another, but they should be aired.

 * If I get a chance, I'll post something here for comment and we can move from there. Blotto adrift 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It is only right that both sides of the argument be heard. I would only insist that the Coalition be held to the same standard of academic scrutiny.  I am tired to listening to anonymous sources being quoted, the use of unverifiable 'statistics' and 'facts' and statements that rely on scare mongering and propaganda as a substitute for reasoned debate.  All Canadians want a safer society and true value for our tax dollars.  So much of reality indicates we are getting neither with this program.

Zeister29 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

since some bots are being twats
here is the link I wanted to add, it is not spam as some bots are assuming it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOmUXycDPs

--216.110.236.243 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And how is this a reliable source, what about linking to the original, etc. etc. And for the information you try to link it to, please read up on WP:SOAPBOX.  And though a bot is not a person, there is no reason to call it names.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:Civil. Even if you are calling a Bot names, it's not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all mixing up our wikipedia rules here. the guideline says not to use youtube vids as primary evidence. This is not primary evidence, How does our citing watching him say exactly what was written constitute anything bad? it's certainly not against reputable source. --Jadger (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

May Bulzz ittch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.210.102 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rex Murphy
I removed the following: "In one year, 69 people in Toronto were murdered with firearms, none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry, proving the gun registry to be, as Rex Murphy stated "useless" "

Despite the presence of a citation, I would deem this POV. Rex Murphy is a political commentator, not a firearms expert. If it is to be included, it should be added as opinion - e.g. "Rex Murphy called the Gun Registry a "...debatable policy [that] cost one billion dollars and the registry itself is useless to boot." Instead, as worded, the sentence essentially reads that the registry is useless because Rex Murphy says so.  The original assertation that "none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry" would need a better citation than that.  Blotto adrift (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 * How is it POV? it states an experts position, Wikipedia has to be neutral, its sources do not. Rex Murphy is a political commentator yes, which is why his remarks are valid.  How would being a firearms expert add anything to his credibility? A firearms expert deals with the use and history of the weapons, not with the laws made up by politicians to control the weapons.  A Firearms expert can tell you how fast a MG42 can empty a belt of ammo, but how will this add anything to a politically debated issue?  Rex Murphy makes his living studying the laws made by Canadian government, how is he not qualified to comment on this issue?  After all, this issue is Canadian Law

 * --Jadger (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Criminologist then. Firearms policy expert.  Murphy is a pundit, not an expert.  Pundits generally quote experts.  He is as qualified to comment on the issue as anyone, but his pronouncments in this article do not warrant the blanket "the registry does not work" comment at the beginning of the article.   As noted earlier, the sentence should be reworded to suggest that Murphy says the registry is a failure, not that it's a failure because he says so.  As I've said, I'm not necessarily against including the quotation, but I'm not in favour of it as it stands.  It would be better after Gary Mauser and the other comments later in the article.  That said, Murphy refers to the Auditor-General's report and other controversies already mentioned in the article - he isn't adding much that hasn't already been said.  Blotto adrift (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Did you even look at my edit before reverting it? I did change it up as you wanted to say that Rex thinks it doesnt work. and as you said, it hits on many things that are also said elsewhere in the article, making it perfect for the lead.  Just because it is stated elsewhere in the article by other sources doesn't mean we can also use this source.  The more sources the better.  I would suggest we both stop touching the article until you come up with a clear reason why it shouldn't be added.  As I know all too well how this works, no one touches it in order to finish this dispute, and then the person who didn't want the information in the article will just stop discussing because they think they have won. and then revert whenever the page gets changed.

 * --Jadger (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * And speak of the Devil, not even 5 minutes after I wrote the above, looks who does not discuss on the talk page and simply starts reverting again and again. He hasn't even discussed on this talk page once despite reverting the article more than 4 times in the last day, and despite the fact that multiple other users have tried to contact him on this discussion page, but he simply ignored it, and promptly had the anon blocked for two weeks.

 * and then look, he's started deleting my statements on the talk page, why is that Betacommand? Take a look at his contributions, The first page, the only talk page contribs he makes are reverting my edits on this talk page here (talk about incivil)

 * --Jadger (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I crafted a reply, but it was wiped out due to conflicting edits.  I'll try again.  I apologise for temporarily deleting your comments - I thought Betacommand had deleted them and was reinstating them.  I then realised that Betacommand had already reinstated them, so I RV'd my change.  In any event, your comments are here.  I maintain that the article as it now reads is POV.

"In one year, 69 people in Toronto were murdered with firearms, none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry, proving the gun registry to be, as Rex Murphy stated "useless"

 * In order to determine that "none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry," someone would have to study the outcomes and methods used in these cases to make a determination of what roles what crimefighting methods played. And I'm no grammar expert, but I don't believe that this is even a proper sentence.

 * I have suggested changes that I believe would make the addition less POV, yet still allow it to remain. Despite the fact that I don't believe the repitition of points already made improves the article, I am prepared to compromise.  You suggest that no one touch your edit until I "come up with a clear reason why it shouldn't be added."  I would suggest that you leave out the edit until we can come to a mutually acceptable solution.  Blotto adrift (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

that is not the latest version that I editted it to, giving even more credence to that fact I stated that you don't even look at my edits before reverting them. and as for studying them, no, all one has to do is see if any of the guns used in these crimes were registered, and whether they were not stolen. If they are unregistered or illegal weapons, then the registry doesn't work, and if the gun is registered but stolen, then the registry still does nothing. That is all that is needed to be known if the gun registry could help or solve them, which is in fact known to be the case.

"I would suggest that you leave out the edit until we can come to a mutually acceptable solution." I have already stated why this doesn't work, because one editor that already has his version on the page will stop discussing it and it will remain his way until someone changes the article again, which in all probability will mean reverts again and again. Betacommand already gave a perfect example of this not five minutes after I said that the first time.

--Jadger (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * How about this

"But as Canada's experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, gun control isn't the answer"

 * --Jadger (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for the obvious that User:216.110.236.243 is User:Jadger and that 216.110.236.243 was blocked yesterday for adding this same info. βcommand 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * @#$% edit conflicts keep killing my edits. Jadger, the section I quoted was identical to the last edit, minus the citation.  I know the citation was there, but didn't cut & paste it because I was talking about the content of the sentence, not the citation.  I do read the edits, thank you again for asking.
 * As for your change in wording, I would have to say that I cannot support it. The registry is one part of gun control and this article is about the registry only.  And again, saying that the registry hasn't solved any crimes would require some sort of detailed study of the issue.  As to your comments about unregistered firearms' use in crimes, I'm not here to debate the effectiveness of the registry or gun control.  Your opinions are widely held, but there are also other views on the subject that are widely held.  Additional comments like this won't remove that POV tag. Blotto adrift (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed comments by Gary Mauser, as they don't pertain to the registry (only gun control in general). Removed comments regarding murders and murder rates as there is no indication of casuality - the stats date before the registry was implemented.  Blotto adrift (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF is this? I leave for a couple months, come back and I'm getting accused of sh!t I didnt do? remember to follow wikipedia's guidelines, including assume good faith

--Jadger (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

also notice that the anon IP was only warned 3 times from 19:23 to 19:24 on 28 January, during which time he did not edit... resulting in a block at that time, a little bit of a bias don't you think? especially since it seems Betacommand was asked repeatedly to discuss edits but instead revert warred with the anon... but was not himself blocked at all. a little bit of selective justice IMHO.

Your opinions are widely held, but there are also other views on the subject that are widely held. like what? citations? wikipedia has to be NPOV, but our sources do not. Why are you against the insertion of any expert source that doesn't support the gun registry?

--Jadger (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Initial opposition
The first two sentences in this paragraph are unsourced and I will delete them if no one has any reason why they should be included. While I am sure that some people thought the registry would lead to "the confiscation of all guns in Canada" that did not represent the mainstream opposition to the bill. The article would be improved if someone could add why the Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc opposed the bill. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of times registry used daily
I think its best to leave that out completely, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said 9400/day however, its meant total of 9400 searches on personal info daily, NOT searches related to firearm registry. Kullwarrior 18 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.187.167 (talk)

allegations of lobbying section
I'm troubled by the fact that this whole section seems to depend on a piece from the Red Deer Advocate, which is a local paper without any national scope. The title, "Liberals just keep wasting our money", implies that this is an opinion piece rather than reportage. I'm going to look for a better source for this. A man in space (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

citation 18
It doesn't seem to be functional. Can someone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.12.55 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper
Should we say the Long Gun Registry is now abolished after the conservatives scrap it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.102.112 (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Compliance
There was some reverting of contradictory figures on gun owner's compliance with C-68, namely LUFA's figure of 30% and a CBC report stating 75%. Given the widely divergent claims on both sides, it seems reasonable to have both views represented. The Coalition for Gun Control claims 90% compliance, so a reference to that source was added. Blotto adrift (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Canadian Firearms Registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150131205029/http://www.cacp.ca/media/news/download/1196/Bill_C-19_LGR_Presentation_Final,_Nov_17_,2011.pdf to http://www.cacp.ca/media/news/download/1196/Bill_C-19_LGR_Presentation_Final,_Nov_17_,2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian Firearms Registry. 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://archive.is/20130120204109/http://www.lufa.ca/quickfacts.asp to http://www.lufa.ca/quickfacts.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/FactsofProgram.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511133546/http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/08/Press_Release_Chiefs_Jones_20100824.html to http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/08/Press_Release_Chiefs_Jones_20100824.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.taxpayer.com/node/10947
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927070637/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/notice-avis/com-con-eng.htm to http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/notice-avis/com-con-eng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150309041429/http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc5140/2014onsc5140.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc5140/2014onsc5140.html

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) 01:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Firearms Registry. 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/20060709084728/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7f744959-cd1a-4746-af84-53957b01a6a0 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7f744959-cd1a-4746-af84-53957b01a6a0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104165438/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm to http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm

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) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Replacing my lost gun registry certificate
Where can I call to get another copy if it ?? 170.203.222.31 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/timeline-the-gun-registry-debate-1.786548. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Canadian Firearms Registry