text:
Talk:Atheism/Archive 6

Changes
I used diety whereever it was possible without being innaccurate (i.e. against the information cited). I also moved this portion: "In Europe's Middle Ages, atheism was regarded as amoral, often criminal; atheists could be sentenced to death by burning, especially in countries where the Inquisition was active. While Protestantism suffered from discrimination and persecution by the then dominant Roman Catholic Church, Calvin was also in favor of burning atheists and heretics."

Until someone can show me an example of an atheist being burned, or otherwise mistreated. Jack 05:11, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Fairly easy. In Paris, 1766, Jean-François de La Barre was tortured into confessing, then sentenced to be burned. His crimes: an atheist, he did not salute a Christian procession, and he owned a book by Voltaire. David.Monniaux 16:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Avowed atheists were few and far between at the time when burnings, hangings torture, etc. were carried out. However for an example of someone who, while probably not an atheist, was hanged for statements which implied disbelief in Scripture see the case of Thomas Aitkenhead.  This makes you realise why atheists, by-and-large, tended to keep their opinions to themselves before the scientific revolution made their views more acceptable, believing, no doubt, that discretion was the better part of valour. -- Derek Ross

Your comment interests me, but I don't see you saying that this passage can be verified. Indeed, I don't hear you disagreeing with me that their essentially were no atheists at that time. IMO Neitzche was the father of atheism, along w others in the 19th century (deism was a yet another culprit). I would like to have the origins of atheism explored in this article, a section relating to criticism, and really an over all fleshing out of this article (I think I'll focus on my strength, helping provide the criticism section). With so many of you guys around, I would think you'd have more to say about your faith (or lack thereof ;). How about mentions of atheist charitable organizations, or think tanks, or whatever it is you guys do as a ... group? Jack 05:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I doubt that the passage can be directly verified. The reasons being that the majority of atheists, myself included, will quite happily pretend to be devout believers if it keeps us out of jail, off the rack, etc.  Thus atheist lack of interest in God tends to protect us by making us invisible. But the maltreatment of heretics, who can't generally hide to the same extent, because they care too much about God and their beliefs, clearly shows how severely even non-believers in minor points of doctrine were punished for their beliefs.  That can certainly be verified.  It's difficult to imagine that someone who did not believe in a major point of doctrine like the existence of God would be treated more leniently.

 * I doubt that many atheists have read Neitsche so I'm not sure why you think of him as the father of atheism. Most of us have probably come to our own conclusions without any help from mad, misunderstood Germans and as for us as a group -- well -- er -- probably most of us don't care enough to form a group.  Of course as always there are exceptions, and no doubt that's why various Rational Humanist and Secular Humanist groups have been formed.  If you're looking for atheist think tanks, you should be able to find rightwing and leftwing flavours since I suppose both Objectivist and Socialist think tanks should count.

 * Finally I agree with you about the development of the article. There's certainly room for more of the things that you mention. -- Derek Ross

 * well, I ment in terms of a founding father, but then I had no idea there were atheists so long before him, in the 1600's and so forth as Snoyes links show. Anyways, he should be mentioned here, as his "God is dead" statement certainly influenced modern atheistic thought (if not inspiring all of atheism, as I had previously suspected). p.s. I would be quite happy to see you help in fleshing this article out! Jack 06:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The "God is dead" statement is a partial quote. The full quote is "Men live as if God is dead."  DavidR 20:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That's not true at all. Nietzsche says it more than once in "The Gay Science." Book III, 108 says "New Struggles. After Buddha was dead people showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave - an immense frightful shadow. God is dead: but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow. And we - we have still to overcome his shadow!" 125 is probably the more common citation, where the madman is speaking: "God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! ... Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event - and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!" Source The idea is that the shared belief in god was fading, and that something was needed to replace it; Nietzsche sought to do just that. I really have no idea where your purported quote comes from, but I could find nothing of it online, and I wonder what your motive might be in listing it here. My guess would be that it has something to do with your faith, but such speculation is not fair to you, just as your erroneous quote is unfair to Nietzsche and those interested in learning about his philosophies. User:Davin (usurped) 22:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * My interest is always in The Truth. I was attempting to correct what I thought was a mistake someone else made.  I'll have to check my research, and I appreciate you helping set me right.  DavidR 23:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yup, atheism has been around longer than Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. Some of the Greek philosophers were atheist in 300BC and before, Diagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras to name but three. But then it was relatively safe to be atheist and show it at that time. -- Derek Ross

 * You really seem to know your sources, I think this article can use as much as you have time (and interest) to write :D Jack 07:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I challange all to read the article as it is, and add to it where needed, rather than wasting everyones time over arguments which can easilly be solved by proper sourcing, compromise, and wikiquette. Jack 05:16, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Aitkenhead
Capital-g god is impermissible, period. I am astonished at the disingenuity of claiming that this is not a reference to a specific deity - and one whose worshippers currently exhibit a great deal of intolerance towards atheists in the Western world.

The only objector in evidence to the distinguishing of strong vs weak atheism is one particular person who has been going to great lengths to edit this article so as to marginalize atheism and atheists, and to shove their particular brand of theism down throats.

For persecution of atheists, see the murder of Aitkenhead. For a modern example, look at the treatment Madalyn Murray O'Hair got.

Salsa Shark 05:50, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Um.. he wasn't atheist. And she was protested against and so forth... where are these burnings at the stake, or other such fearful persecutions? Jack 05:54, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can't find much on this aitkenhead at all. And by US legal terms, since his death was legally carried out it wasn't murder. That was the law at that time and place. I thought you atheists were moral/cultural relativists? Jack 05:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * And I thought that you believers in God were Muslims. Looks like we were both wrong :-)  For information on Aitkenhead's case see How the Scots Invented the Modern World (ISBN 0-609-80999-7).  As for Burnings at the Stake, they were legally carried out too.  So they weren't murder either by US legal standards, merely legal penalties for crimes.  Most people would still think of them as persecution though. -- Derek Ross

Calvin's Geneva was indeed rather repressive. It is true that Calvin and his followers burned far more theists that had rather different views from theirs than they did atheists. But they certainly did persecute atheists:
 * "Calvin strongly squelched religious objections, too. The magistrates executed Jacques Gruet in 1547 for blasphemy and atheism. Gruet owned "immoral books" and often showed indiscretion in his speech. He often expressed his opinions openlyj and often criticized Calvin and the magistrates. Pierre Amio refused to attend church or adopt prevailing standards of dress. Calvin imprisoned him for his rebellion." (section 3)

 * "Two manuscripts by John Calvin bear witness to the dramatic story of the Protestant Reform in the State of Geneva during the 16th century. In one of them, Calvin justifies, eloquently and at considerable length, the first death sentence that he ordered and obtained in 1547 for Jacques Gruet, the author of a famous breviary of atheism Des trois imposteurs (estimated 50, 000/80, 000 euros). No autograph manuscript by Calvin of such importance has been sold at auction in the last 25 years." (section: "John Calvin")

So not only did atheists exist, but they were persecuted even by reformers like Calvin. - snoyes 06:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Excellent. Lets place a link to that within the article. Thats just what I've been asking for, citations. In case you guys ever think I'm being unreasonable, just give me a citation, and I'll smile :) Jack 06:20, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know its POV, but saying "Calvinism" and "reformer" in the same sentance makes my mouth taste bad ;) If atheism is the opposite of theism, calvinism is the opposite of me ;) Jack 06:33, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Our goal is NPOV, and our tool is sources!
The article is littered with capital-G God references again! Didn't we just come to a compromise agreement a few hours ago to use "deity" instead of "god" so the issue wouldn't be a problem any more? I don't have time to deal with yet another edit war right now, but come tomorrow unless there's some good reason why that compromise is suddenly unacceptable I'm going to implement it myself. Bryan 06:37, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Read the above. I placed deity instead of God wherever it didn't outright contridict available sources. Remember this: our goal is NPOV, and our tool is sources Cite any edits you dubious edits you make, I am ever watchful :) Jack 07:05, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Not even slightly good enough. After weeks of arguing against using capital-G god, we finally come to some semblance of an agreement on a compromise, and then you immediately go and blank the talk: page off to Archive 5: January 2004 and stick capital-G God all over the article again. I am quite convinced at this point that you are hopelessly POV on this subject (much evidence is present in the archived talk I linked to), and so I'm taking those capital G's out; I see no need to repeat the entire argument over again. Bryan 23:48, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I've also removed those external links you put in the definition. No other Wikipedia article I've come across has seen fit to include dictionary links in the definition like that; instead, use wiki links when you want to refer to the definition of a term, and save the external links for the external links section. Bryan 23:52, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your opposition to citation ... angers me. If you cannot accept the facts when they are presented to you (rant deleted by author) you are incapable of editing an encyclopedia. Jack 03:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not an opposition to citation, but rather to the format. External links should go in the external links section, by and large, and when there's a term within the article itself that needs clarification you should link to a Wikipedia article to do that. How many other Wikipedia articles are there that have external dictionary links in their definition? Anyway, your citations are not particularly good, especially not in terms of supporting your particular argument here. For example, take a look at your theism definition link ; the very first line is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." Doesn't that contradict your previous assertions that God is not a god? You have a history of not judging citations very well. Bryan 04:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. ad hominem's have no place here. Jack 04:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not an ad hominem if it's actually relevant to what you're doing to the article. Back in Archive 5: January 2004 you brought up many external URLs to support your arguments that turned out to be very poor citations, and I just showed in the paragraph above how I don't think your theism citation doesn't say what you thought it did either. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question the validity of your citations based on that. Bryan 05:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any interested parties can review the references or whatever. Jack 05:14, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, that's what I did. I reviewed, and then I edited. Bryan 05:53, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Marx's papa
Marx's father was a lawyer, not a rabbi. --Jose Ramos 11:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
The NPOV header ends the edit war for me. Its not right, but at least our reader has an advisory so that he knows what he is reading is biased. Jack 06:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. We can now at least get on with the rest of our Wikilives, and leave it to others to deal with this mess. Bryan 06:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great, yet another dispute header. Thanks for creating a mess and not cleaning it up.—Eloquence

 * I also strongly dislike dispute headers, and will be perfectly happy to see the necessary changes made in order for it to be removed. Jack 19:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, for me it seems to be a choice of this or a resumption of the edit war that started the past few weeks of arguing in the first place. I don't actually think the article as it stands is NPOV myself, but obviously Jack does so there it is. What's the procedure for resolving such situations other than simply waiting for one party to get tired of reverting the other's edits and storm off in a huff? I've already added an entry on this article to Current disputes over articles. Bryan 01:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Um.. the guidelines are pretty simple Bryan. Check out revert. It says to make improvements, rather than simply undoing imrpovements made by others. Your ment to be a writer and an editor here, not a saboteur. Jack 02:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I was talking to Eloquence, not you. We've had this argument about whether a reversion can be an improvement many times before, and it is not relevant here. Bryan 03:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Jack: Criticising others for things you do yourself (reverting) is trolling. Please stop it. - snoyes 03:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The normal thing to do in situations like this is to try to find a compromise. For example: We can use the capitalized God in quotations and the lower case god in our text. We can elaborate on the problem by phrasing it differently, e.g. "one absolute God, a god, or many gods". We can try to substitute the remaining God/god uses with a different term. Please experiment with these solutions, and try to accommodate each other's viewpoint. If you both leave this article, I will simply remove the NPOV dispute header as I consider this a minor issue.—Eloquence 08:20, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * All of those sound like good options to me. My main complaint has always been the singling out of God as the primary entity that atheists don't believe in, when atheism is much more general than that. Shall I try making the changes, or leave it up to someone who wasn't directly involved in the previous edit wars? Bryan 19:28, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, I should also mention that as soon as Jack indicated he'd leave this article as-is with the NPOV header he went over to agnosticism and resumed the reversion war there. It's now in the same state as this article with an NPOV header, so perhaps the same solution can be applied there. Bryan 19:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the same soloution should be applied consistantly thruout. And I am VERY dubious of either Bryan or myself making necessary changes, but I guess we'll see. I must say I am rather unhappy with the removal of the NPOV dispute header before any changes were made, but I don't feel like quarrelling w eloquence, so I suppose I'll back up off that for now. Jack 21:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comment moved here from article
User:170.35.224.64 wrote

(XXX: Poor example; though Jewish rabbis symbolicly equate Amalekites with atheism, the actual story of Amalek in the Jewish and Christian Bible does not make this connection.)

I moved this here. Bmills 13:09, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and this

(XXX: somebody needs to edit this, if you read the Jewish and Christian scriptures you'll see Amalek is not connected with atheism. This is a misrepresentation.)

Bmills 16:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I came here by following the link on requests for comment asking for comments on capitalization of god. There was no date, so forgive me if this has been dealt with already.

I looked over the archives and have this to add:

"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." Interstingly, it defines atheism as "1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity."
 * the Greek word theos does, as someone posted, mean a god (any god). However, O Theos (o means something like "the" or "he") means God (the god of Christianity).
 * god, uncapitalised, means any god -- the god of the wind, the god of fire, etc. God, capitalised, refers to the Christian god.
 * When trying to decide a definition for atheism, it's useful to look up its opposite: theism. Merriam Webster defines theism as
 * really, the definition of atheist seems to rely on context. In discussions of Christianity, to profess atheism is to deny belief in God.  Generally, to be an atheist is to not believe in gods.

Dunno if that helps or says anything new...

Exploding Boy 12:27, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Conventions in capitalization
Santa Claus would be capitalized even though it describes a fictional character. Of course the spanish (latin?) santa would not be capitalized unless used in the context of a proper name of a real or imagined person. The name of the Christian deity would be capitalized because they believe in the personal agency of their god. Christians beleive there is only one god, and they call him God. To write about the one God would be to affirm the Christian belief that their God is the only god, unless in the context of saying the one God of Christian faith. There is an abundance of ways around this conflict, including use of the term "deity" (already done) and coupling reference to Christian faith with any reference to the proper noun God. If parties can't work this out along those lines, maybe I'll come back and sort through the article's references to dieties, but i'd rather not need to bother. Then I would have to go see what articles have developed about monotheism, and the history of monotheistic religion such as Egyptian worship of Ra, etc., Soul kitch 23:20, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

dispute header
I am not going to have a revert war (as User:Bryan Derksen appears to be attempting), but this article either needs to be NPOV, or have a dispute header. Either it is disputed (thus needing the header) or not. It is unaccptable option for it to be disputed without the header. Sam Spade 06:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This dispute is the exact same one that we spent the last few weeks of January working over. The situation won't change just because you've changed your user name and left the article alone for a while. Bryan 06:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Charities
All this stuff about charities is a complete red herring unless someone cares to add a balanced discussion on the morality of giving/dependence/etc. Bmills 16:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll
Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll

Ethics of atheism
Cut from "definition" section:

 * Some advocates assert that atheism is synonymous with irreligion; other advocates object to this assertion, arguing that members of deity-embracing religious organisations could secretly hold atheist beliefs. Additionally, a number of atheistic "churches" have sprung up, as well as religious organizations which allow atheists as members. Naturalistic Pantheism is such an example, Brianism is another.

After reading this and several of the following paragraphs, I realized that the entire beginning of the article reads like a defense of atheism against charges leveled by various believers, that being an atheist is somehow "bad".

Before I altered the cut paragraph, it asserted that it's not necessarily "irreligious" to be an atheist! :-)

But no such defense is necessary, so let's not confuse our readers with tricky rhetoric. No one's accusing anyone here.

If there are people out there in the real world beyond the pages of Wikipedia who say that atheism is bad, let's quote them. It's the best way of de-fanging the tiger. Reduce the power of their accusation to "That's your opinion!"

Now, let's explain why various advocates despise atheism. Is it because these advocates believe everyone should be "religious" and that in their opinion it's wrong to be "irreligious"? Then the article should say that these advocates think this way. Etc. --Uncle Ed 22:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I placed a link to amalek in this regard, to express the severity of sentiment against atheism, and some explanation/articulation of it. This was roundly disaproved of, and so I have since refrained from seeking sources citing persons objecting to atheism, but rather focus on promoting factual accuracy (which has gone profoundly badly as anyone with time or interest can easilly asess. Sam Spade 02:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I replaced the link to Amalek with a reference to II Thessalonians in the Bible, which talks about destruction of those who persecute Christians. Actually this isn't strictly a denunciation of unbelievers, but it was the best I could find.  The story of Amalek in the Bible (the way you had it worded) is not given in any sense as a denunciation of an unbeliever, although Jewish commentators have interpreted it that way.  Thus it was factually incorrect to state that the story of Amalek in the Bible was an example of the Scripture of a particular faith denouncing an unbeliever.  (The Jewish Rabbi writings might contain such denunciations, but the Scripture itself does not.  Amalek isn't even identified as an unbeliever, per se.  As a person, he's barely mentioned at all; most of what the Bible says about Amalek is about the nation of Amalek descended from him, and they are condemned because of actions they took as a nation, not because of the actions of Amalek.)  It's actually surprisingly difficult to find a "denunciation of unbelievers" in Scripture; I'd like to find a better example than the one I used, but I can't think of one yet.

Here's a quote from a page: "Why am I making these accusations? How can I call these celebrities anti-American and atheists?" Since being called an atheist is called an accusation, and lumped in with being "anti-American" (which is a whole other topic, I admit), I would say the linked page is using "atheist" in a negative way. Would anyone care to analyze this? (first link from google search "liberal atheists") link:  --User:C. McNeil 18 Feb 2004

 * This is just some dumb rant against celebrities who are not christian. But how is this relevant here? - snoyes 23:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

this is almost acceptable
the article as it stands (after my last two edits, and the many reasonable edits by others) is about an inch from being great. I think very little else needs done. In fact, it is so good, that if my recent clarifications are not reverted w/o discussion by some troll, I'm not sure I need to be a part of the process of making it any better. Sam Spade 02:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I am glad that we pass your high standards. Nevertheless I have reworded your intro as it didn't pass mine.—Eloquence 03:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Now were back where we started. Goodbye quality article, hello atheist POV. Sam Spade 03:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I for one feel like we are moving forward.—Eloquence

 * Same here. Considering that on Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll Sam just indicated that he prefers the definition of atheism to be "the rejection of God, Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin," I don't think he's much of a useful authority on NPOV. Bryan 03:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like your optomism. What do you think of this edit? Sam Spade 03:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cheers to Eloquence
You have honestly suprised me with your reasonable nature, believe it or not. Rather than sacrificing article quality based on personalities or POV, you seem to have the interests of the reader at heart. Good recent edits. Sam Spade 03:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is now satisfactory. I no longer find it to be offensive, nor particularly innaccurate. Because I dislike this subject, and because there have been so many troubles great and small for me on this page, I will be leaving it for now. I think that everyone here can stand to take a minute to thank Eloquence for his fine abilities as both an editor, and negotiator. It is finially clear to me how he has earned his status here. Thanks once again Eloquence, and goodbye all. Sam Spade 04:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Relationship between communism and atheism
I feel that the relationship you made between communism and atheism is related to the cultural and historial context of the U.S.A. during the 20th century. I think it was built by several presidents that both rejected communism and held strong theistic beliefs, and it is (at least partially) artificial. I think you should look at this issue in a more international perspective, atheism existed long before communism and trascends it. It is like filling half of the roman catholicism article with references to facism. My opinion: for this article we should include more about philosophy and thought. -- 25 Feb 2004 ChaTo

 * I disagree. One of the prime tenants of Communism is that there is no authority higher than that of The State.  One of the first things new Communist regimes do is "offer" mandatory classes in evolution (taught as fact, not theory) so that the people will believe they "just happened" rather than they were created.  And since they were not created there is no creator. - David 04:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This is incorrect. Many Communists contend that in a Communist society, there would be no state! (Note how none of the former Eastern Bloc countries called themselves "Communist", but only "Socialist".) David.Monniaux 16:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, the current article is quite incomplete in those areas. I'll try to come up with some new stuff to add on the weekend, feel free to create some headers and section-stubs to suggest good areas to fill in and I'll see if I can do it. Bryan 02:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Done, I based on the article on Christianity to order the headers :); I also added data from the BBC survey mentioned below. I am not 100% satisfied with the headers but it will depend on how much information we can gather for each topic in the future. -- 27 Feb 2004 ChaTo

BBC survey
There's an interesting survey on the BBC.CO.UK site today, showing global belief in god. Mark Richards 01:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Could you provide a more specific URL? I didn't look very hard, but it wasn't obvious where on the page I might find this survey. Bryan 01:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm.—Eloquence 04:31, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Added to the article -- 27 Feb 2004 ChaTo

An observation
Consider what a user who, for whatever reason, is unfamiliar with the term “atheist”, might type into a search engine. “God does not exist”, perhaps, or “disbelief in god”. Would you expect to find atheism at the top of such a search? Try a Google search in Wikipedia for these terms, and your expectation will be disappointed. God knows were such a search on the whole of Google would put this page – certainly not in the top 100 sites.

My point is that removing the word “god” (capitalised or otherwise) has had the result of effectively marginalising this article. Atheists are of interest because they do not believe in God, not because they do not believe in deities.

 * That statement is an assumption about the background of the reader, that has no evidence. Certainly your statement is true in America, perhaps even in a good portion of the Western world, but I disagree that it is true everywhere. Regardless, is it the point of Wikipedia articles to attract all reasonable keywords, or is it the point to explain a specifically selected concept? KeithTyler 00:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I am aware that this has been a difficult issue for the authors, and one you may have hoped had been laid to rest. At one stage I supported the use of “deities”. But the effect of adopting “deities” has been to assign the article to cybernetic limbo.Banno 19:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, the only reason I suggested switching to "deities" in the first place was because I thought it might end the edit war without leaving the article in a state where it was actually misleading; suboptimal, but acceptable for the short term. Not sure how to go about improving things from here, at least not without reigniting the edit war. Maybe tinkering will become less risky once that 3-revert rule is finally enacted. Bryan 02:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Be wary of falsifying information in the midst of your tinkering, young jedi ;) The "god" denied by every atheist I know is the one true God, not some Zeus or other such lesser straw man. Sam Spade 02:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps this is because your own background is so strongly associated with that particular god? After all, you admit your only sample group is the athiests that you know. It's not clear to me that you have done any sort of assessment of athiests around the world. Certainly atheists in India are known for not believing in Krishna, and atheists in Egypt are known for not believing in Allah, etc. Fact is, though, even those athiests whom you define in the terms of your own religious beliefs do also reject the existence of any other alleged deity you can reference. (In fact, it seems clear to me, that you would agree with athiests on the status of 99% of the world's declared deities -- all except for one!) KeithTyler 00:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You're only referring to a subset of atheists with this description. This is the exact same dispute that we've had from the very beginning. Bryan 03:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your right, and thats the prob. w specifying any one diety. But if you want to get alot of links (like banno seems to want) you'll have to focus on that subset (IMO the clear majority) of atheists. Sam Spade 05:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * And now we're right back to the issue of whether "god" with a small G refers to all the things atheists lack belief in rather than one specific subset, as discussed on Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll. Bryan 05:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, you know my view, and that of those that agree with me, that the wiki should be compatible w other reference sources on this issue, and must be scrupulously accurate in its usage of capitalization on this most controversial of all issues, the matter of God. As banno himself has said, it isn't Zeus most atheists are focusing their denial on ;) Sam Spade 05:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in the past atheism does not necessarily require denial. And Zeus is significant because someone who believed in Zeus wouldn't be an atheist. I'm not going to bother going over it all again, though, since it apparently doesn't make a difference. Bryan 05:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are quite right that repetition is likely not the answer to this particular comprehension conundrum. Anyhow, keep in mind you'll have no conflict with me here so long as you maintain NPOV, verifiability, citations and factual accuracy. Cheers, Sam Spade 05:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It just occurred to me to actually reread the article and do an actual count. "God" appears 8 times, "god" appears 6 times, "deity" appears 8 times, and "deities" appears 1 time. Perhaps the akward wording isn't as bad as I'd feared, I can't find anything to point to and say "this sounds rough due to poor word choice" right now. Bryan 06:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for providing the word counts. Are you guys aware that this article was featured in Metawiki ? It had the honor of being featured as an article that undergo one of the lamest edit wars ever. It is true that the "deities" and "deity" usage sounds really weird, and it's also true that people are free to say "god", "God", or "invisible pink unicorn", but let's move on ! There is still plenty of work to do with this article. -- ChaTo Thu Mar 11 20:30:36 UTC 2004

 * Bah, I can beat that record easily; I recently got into a brief edit war over whether or not Mosaic (disambiguation) should have at the bottom. Much lamer than this. At least in the case of this capitalization issue the underlying cause of the conflict was meaningful. :) Bryan 00:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alll
Atheism is a disbelief in alll deities. (only lasted a few minutes)

I like alll. It is like Iff. JWSchmidt 23:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you think it means "all and only all"? :-)Banno

 * Yes. For example, one possible way you could have "a disbelief in all deities" would be to not believe ANYTHING. Some times when we say "I do not believe that" other people say, "Oh, you dont believe ANYTHING [that I tell you]!"

 * It seems that saying "disbelief in alll deities" would mean dieties are the ONLY things that you are sure do not exist. You are willing to entertain the possible existence of anything else, just not dieties. Saying "alll" prevents the possible reply "you dont believe anything."

 * I think "alll" should go in the Wiktionary. JWSchmidt 03:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * But this is more restrictive than what atheism actually implies. Why can't an atheist disbelieve dieties, and also disbelieve unicorns, or Sasquatch, or flying saucers? Also, note that "lack of belief" is not equivalent to "is sure it does not exist" - that's been argued over at length here in the past. Bryan 04:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If your not sure, your not an atheist. Your an agnostic. Atheism requires faith :P Sam Spade 04:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Please let's not get into this argument again. :) Bryan 05:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * No, athiesm only refers to disbelief in deities. It does not refer to a disbelief in anything else. (Well... I was under the impression it also included disbelief in any cosmic forces, personified or otherwise [e.g. astrology], but that doesn't seem to be represented.) It is irrelevant to have to state, for example, that atheists do not believe in deities but may believe in unicorns, aliens, supply-side economics, etc. KeithTyler 00:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that was my point. "Disbelief in all and only all deities" is not a correct definition of atheism specifically because it brings non-deities into the picture as well, when non-deities are actually irrelevant to atheism. Atheists don't have to disbelieve "only all deities." Bryan 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * New animals are still found on Earth, so it might make sense to wait and see if Sasquatch is found. There might be reasons why aliens try to hide from us and can do so because of advanced technology. It would not be very hard to use genetic engineering to make a unicorn. Anyhow, I think the real point is that some people may feel that deities are among the set of things least likely to exist and such atheists may prefer a stronger version of atheism that makes this clear. JWSchmidt 05:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The article strong atheism would seem appropriate in that case. Bryan 05:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"The difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism might be summed up as follows: strong atheism is the belief in the lack of any god, while weak atheism is the lack of belief in any god." is the relevent quote. Sam Spade 06:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atheism/Archive 6


text:
Charles Alexander Stevenson

Charles Alexander Stevenson MICE MIEE FRSE (23 December 1855, – 9 May 1950 ) was a Scottish lighthouse engineer who built twenty-three lighthouses in and around Scotland.

Life
He was born at 8 Forth Street in the east part of Edinburgh's New Town The family moved to 20 Royal Terrace on Calton Hill shortly after his birth.

Born into the famous Stevenson family of lighthouse engineers, son of David Stevenson and his wife Elizabeth Mackay, brother of David Alan Stevenson, and nephew of Thomas Stevenson, he was educated at Edinburgh Academy 1866 to 1872 then studied mathematics and engineering at the University of Edinburgh where he graduated BSc. He joined the family business of lighthouse design in 1875 remaining unpaid as a family member until 1887 when his uncle, Thomas Stevenson died, after which he became a partner. Between 1887 and 1937 he built 23 lighthouses with his brother, David, and is noted for his experiments with optics. He also improved foghorns and created his own wireless communication system prior to Marconi's wireless.

In 1886, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. His proposers were Sir John Murray, Peter Guthrie Tait, George Chrystal and Alexander Buchan. In 1889 he published an account of recent earthquakes in Scotland, with tabulations and a map, based largely on the accounts of lighthouse keepers.

He lived at 9 Manor Place in Edinburgh with Ernest Maddox as his neighbour at 7 Manor Place.

He died on 9 May 1950. He is buried in the first northern extension to Dean Cemetery in western Edinburgh. The grave lies on the north path towards the north-east corner. His son David Alan Stevenson lies alongside.

Family
He married Margaret Sherriff (1863–1945). With her he had two daughters and a son, David Alan (1891–1971), who was the last of the family to enter the profession of lighthouse design.

His cousin was Robert Louis Stevenson, and grandfather was the lighthouse engineer, Robert Stevenson.

Lighthouses of Charles A Stevenson

 * Skroo, Fair Isle (1892)
 * Helliar Holm (1893)
 * Sule Skerry (1895)
 * Rattray Head (1895)
 * Stroma (1896)
 * Tod Head (1897)
 * Noup Head (1898)
 * Flannan Isles (1899)
 * Tiumpan Head (1900)
 * Killantringan (1900) originally including a gigantic foghorn
 * Barns Ness (1901)
 * Bass Rock (1903)
 * Hyskeir (1904)
 * Trodday (1908)
 * Neist Point (1909)
 * Sandaig Light, Glenelg (1910)
 * Rubh Re (1912)
 * Milaid Point (1912)
 * Maughold Head (1914)
 * Copinsay (1915)
 * Clyth Ness (1916)
 * Duncansby Head (1924)
 * Esha Ness (1929)
 * Tor Ness (1937)

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

title: Charles Alexander Stevenson


text:
Monohull

A monohull is a type of boat having only one hull, unlike multihulled boats which can have two or more individual hulls connected to one another.

Fundamental concept
Among the earliest hulls were simple logs, but these were generally unstable and tended to roll over easily. Hollowing out the logs into a dugout canoe doesn't help much unless the hollow section penetrates below the log's center of buoyancy, then a load carried low in the cavity actually stabilizes the craft. Adding weight or ballast to the bottom of the hull or as low as possible within the hull adds stability.

Naval architects place the center of gravity substantially below the center of buoyancy; in most cases this can only be achieved by adding weight or ballast. The use of stones and other weights as ballast can be traced back to the Romans, Phoenicians and Vikings. Modern ships carry tons of ballast in order to maintain their stability; even heavily laden cargo ships use ballast to optimize the distribution of weight.

Uses
This is the most prevalent form of waterborne vessel.

Variations

 * Keels - Most sailing ships and larger sailboats have deep keels containing ballast which adds horizontal stabilility.
 * Displacement hulls - Monohull boats frequently ride deeply in the water, this is known as a displacement hull.
 * Planing hulls - Hulls that ride on top of the water are called planing hulls, because when they reach speed, the hulls are substantially lifted above the water; this is known as planing (to plane).

title: Monohull


text: File:Rspharipada.JPG

title: File:Rspharipada.JPG


text:
Australian Six

The Australian Six was an Australian automobile manufactured from 1919 to 1925. It was a grandiose attempt to compete against imported cars from the United States, and was produced from a mixture of local and imported parts. Vehicles featured a conventional chassis layout and a choice of five bodies, locally made under the motto 'Made in Australia, by Australians, for Australia'. Most models were fitted with Rutenber Straight-6 engines and Grant Lees or Muncie gearboxes; some, however, had imported OHV Ansted engines instead. Before 1919 the factory was at the Sydney Harbour side suburb of Rushcutters Bay, New South Wales, it then moved to Ashfield until 1924. The company was forced to shut down production after some 500 cars were built; this was due mainly to high local construction costs. The final few cars were made by the Harkness and Hillier hire car company in Sydney. Only four Australian Sixes are thought to survive, one in the Powerhouse Museum automobile collection in Sydney, one in the York Motor Museum, York, Western Australia, this is one of the first six built without a chassis number in the first factory, one in the National Museum in Canberra and one in Birdwood Museum, South Australia.

The term Australian Six (or "Big Aussie six" etc.) is sometimes used to refer to Australian-built large family cars such as the Ford Falcon, Holden Commodore/Toyota Lexcen, Toyota Avalon/Aurion, the Mitsubishi Magna/380, the Chrysler Valiant & the Leyland P76, which often have six-cylinder engines as standard.

In 1984 the car was honoured on a postage stamp, part of a series of five depicting early Australian automobiles, issued by Australia Post.

title: Australian Six


text: User talk:205.188.116.212

title: User talk:205.188.116.212


text: User talk:64.12.117.19

title: User talk:64.12.117.19


text:
Fawcett Taylor

Fawcett Gowler Taylor, (April 29, 1878 – January 1, 1940, ) was a Manitoba politician, and was the leader of that province's Conservative Party from 1922 to 1933.

Taylor was born in Meadow Lea, Manitoba, the son of William Taylor and Marietta Jane Plummer, and was educated in Winnipeg. He was called to the Manitoba bar in 1900 and worked as a barrister. He served as mayor of Portage la Prairie from 1912 to 1915. Taylor married Mabel Agnes Dykeman in 1901. He was named King's Counsel in 1913. In the provincial election of 1915, he ran as a Conservative candidate in the Portage la Prairie constituency and was defeated.

Taylor resigned as mayor later in 1915 to enlist for service in the First World War. Already a captain in the 99th Manitoba Rangers, he was quickly promoted to Major and served in France with the 1st Canadian Mounted Rifles from 1916 to 1918. On returning, he became President of the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada (Dominion Association).

Taylor sought the leadership of provincial Conservatives in 1919, but was defeated by Richard G. Willis. He was elected for Portage la Prairie in the provincial election of 1920, and was chosen as party leader in a second attempt on April 5, 1922, defeating John Thomas Haig.

The Manitoba Conservatives had governed the province from 1900 to 1915, but were in a weak position when Taylor became the party's leader. The scandals of the Roblin government had led to a catastrophic defeat in 1915, with the Conservatives winning only won five of 47 seats. They increased their total to seven in 1920, but were in danger of becoming marginalized by the rise of the United Farmers of Manitoba and Labour.

Taylor's first campaign as party leader was not particularly successful. The UFM swept the countryside in the 1922 campaign, with Labour and the Liberals dominating Winnipeg. Taylor faced a strong challenge from Liberal cabinet minister Charles Duncan McPherson in Portage la Prairie, winning by only 131 votes out of 2743 cast.

Subsequently, Taylor brought the party back to a more viable position. By now a lieutenant colonel, Taylor brought the Conservatives back to 15 seats and official opposition status in the election of 1927. Leading up to the 1932 election, his party was regarded as having a real chance to form government.

This did not occur, however. The federal Liberals were concerned about a Conservative victory in the province, and convinced their provincial affiliate to form an alliance with the governing Progressives (as the UFM government had renamed itself). The combined resources of these parties weakened the Conservative position. Taylor was also damaged by the unpopularity of Conservative Prime Minister Richard Bennett. Taylor's own plan to redistribute land to the poor was criticized by many as ineffective.

The Conservatives won only 10 seats in the 1932 election. Taylor resigned the party leadership in April 1933, after being appointed a judge in the Manitoba Court of King's Bench. He was succeeded in the Portage la Prairie riding by Toby Sexsmith.

He died at home in Winnipeg and was buried in Portage la Prairie.

title: Fawcett Taylor


text:
Third Council of Toledo

The Third Council of Toledo (589) marks the entry of Visigothic Spain into the Catholic Church, and is known for codifying the filioque clause into Western Christianity. The council also enacted restrictions on Jews, and the conversion of the country to Catholic Christianity led to repeated conflict with the Jews.

Arian Goths
In the 4th century, the bishop Wulfila (c 310 – 383) invented a script for the Gothic language, translated the Bible into Gothic, and converted the Goths to Arian Christianity. When the Visigoths traveled west, they encountered Latin Christians, for whom Arianism was anathema. The Visigoths held to their Arian beliefs and refused to join the Catholic Church.

Attempts to unify
Prior to the Council in Toledo, King Reccared had convened informal assemblies of bishops to resolve the religious schism in his kingdom. At the second assembly both Arian and Catholic bishops presented their arguments, while Reccared pointed out that no Arian bishop had ever performed a healing miracle. The last assembly consisted of only Catholic bishops, where upon Reccared accepted the Catholic faith.

Bishop Leander and King Reccared
The Council was organized by Bishop Leander of Seville, who had worked tirelessly to convert the Arian Visigothic kings and had succeeded with Reccared. Abbot Eutropius had the chief day-to-day management of the council, according to the chronicler John of Biclaro. In the king's name, Leander brought together bishops and nobles in May of 589. However, King Reccared and Bishop Leander were only able to persuade eight Arian bishops to attend the council.

Opening
The Council opened on May 4, with three days of prayer and fasting. Then, the public confession of King Reccared was read aloud by a notary. Its theological precision defining Trinitarian and Arian tenets, establishing Reccared's newly achieved orthodoxy, and its extensive quotation from scripture revealed that it was in fact ghostwritten for the king, doubtless by Leander.

Declarations
In it, Reccared declared that God had inspired him to lead the Goths back to the true faith, from which they had been led astray by false teachers. (In fact they had been Christianized by the Arian Ulfilas, but Leander's theme was reconciliation.) He declared that not only the Goths but the Suebi, who by the fault of others had been led into heresy, had been brought back to the faith. These nations he dedicated to God by the hands of the bishops, whom he called on to complete the work. He then anathematized Arius and his doctrine, and declared his acceptance of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon and pronounced an anathema on all who returned to Arianism after being received into the Church by the chrism, or the laying on of hands; then followed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon, and the tome concluded with the signatures of Reccared and Baddo his queen. This confession was received with a general acclamation.

One of the Catholic bishops then called on the assembled bishops, clergy, and Gothic nobles to declare publicly their renunciation of Arianism and their acceptance of Catholicism. They replied that although they had done so already when they had gone over with the king to the Church, they would comply.

Anathemas
Then followed 23 anathemas directed against Arius and his doctrines, succeeded by the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon, the whole being subscribed by 8 Arian bishops with their clergy, and by all the Gothic nobles. The bishops were Ugnas of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, Murila of Palencia, Sunnila of Viseu, Gardingus of Tuy, Bechila of Lugo, Argiovitus of Oporto, and Froisclus of Tortosa. The names of the eight are Germanic in origin. Four come from sees within the former kingdom of the Suebi, probably showing that Leovigild, after his conquest, had displaced the Catholic bishops by Arians.

Canons
Reccared then instructed the council with his licence to draw up any requisite canons, particularly one directing the creed to be recited at Communion, so that henceforward no one could plead ignorance as an excuse for misbelief. Then followed 23 canons with a confirmatory edict of the king.
 * The 1st confirmed the decrees of previous councils of the Catholic Church and synodical letters of the popes;
 * the 2nd directed the recitation of the creed of Constantinople at Holy Communion, with the addition of the Filioque clause: Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son") which was never accepted in the Christian East and led to drawn-out controversy;
 * the 5th forbade the converted Arian bishops, priests, and deacons to live with their wives;
 * the 7th directed that the Scriptures should be read at a bishop's table during meals;
 * the 9th transferred Arian churches to the bishops of their dioceses;
 * the 13th forbade clerics to proceed against other clerics before lay tribunals;
 * the 14th forbade Jews to have Christian wives, concubines, or slaves, ordered the children of such unions to be baptized, and disqualified Jews from any office in which they might have to punish Christians. Christian slaves whom they had circumcised, or made to share in their rites, were ipso facto freed;
 * the 21st forbade civil authorities to lay burdens on clerics or the slaves of the church or clergy;
 * the 22nd forbade wailing at funerals;
 * the 23rd forbade celebrating the eves of Saint's days with dances and songs, characterized as "indecent".

The canons were subscribed first by the king, then by 5 of the 6 metropolitans, of whom Masona signed first; 62 bishops signed in person, 6 by proxy. All those of Tarraconensis and Septimania appeared personally or by proxy; in other provinces several were missing.

Closing
The proceedings closed with a triumphant homily by Leander on the conversion of the Goths, preserved by his brother Isidore as Homilia de triumpho ecclesiae ob conversionem Gothorum a homily upon the "triumph of the Church and the conversion of the Goths."

Effects of the council
The proscriptions against Jews were soon followed by required conversions, which led to a wholesale flight of Jews from Visigothic Spain to Ceuta and technically Visigothic nearby territories in North Africa. There, a community of exiles and malcontents formed, that were later to provide useful alliance and information at the time of the Moorish invasion in 711.

The filioque clause spread through the Latin-literate West but not through the Greek-speaking East. The Franks adopted it, but its use caused controversy in the 9th century. Its use spread to Rome soon after 1000, and it contributed to the Great Schism (1054) between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

title: Third Council of Toledo


text:
Australis (automobile)

The Australis was an Australian automobile manufactured in Leichhardt, New South Wales, from 1896 to 1906 by G.W. & G. Wood. The company began production with a motor driven bicycle in 1895. Only three Australis vehicles were produced: a second motor driven bicycle in 1896, a single-cylinder 3hp two-seat light buggy in 1900 and a 7hp (5 kW) twin-cylinder light buggy in 1906. The original engine from the 1900 Australis buggy is now part of the Powerhouse Museum collection and is thought to be the oldest surviving Australian built engine.

title: Australis (automobile)


text:
Instrument landing system localizer

An instrument landing system localizer, or simply localizer (LOC, or LLZ prior to 2007 ), is a system of horizontal guidance in the instrument landing system, which is used to guide aircraft along the axis of the runway.

Principle of operation
In aviation, a localizer is the lateral component of the instrument landing system (ILS) for the runway centerline when combined with the vertical glide path, not to be confused with a locator, although both are parts of aviation navigation systems.

A localizer (like a glide path) requires both a transmitting airport runway system and receiving cockpit instruments. An older aircraft without an ILS receiver cannot take advantage of any ILS facilities at any runway, and much more importantly, the most modern aircraft have no use of their ILS instruments at runways which lack ILS facilities. In parts of Africa and Asia large airports may lack any kind of transmitting ILS system. Some runways have ILS only in one direction, this can however still be used for the opposite direction (with a lower precision) known as back beam or "Back Course" which is not associated with a glide path.

Two signals are transmitted on one of 40 ILS channels. One is amplitude modulated at 90 Hz, the other at 150 Hz. These are transmitted from co-located phased array antenna elements. Each antenna transmits a narrow beam. In addition, a clearing signal is transmitted at one tenth of the power with a wider beam to prevent receivers from picking up the side lobes of the main beam.

The signals' phases at the antenna elements are arranged such that the 150 Hz signal is more prominent (has a greater depth of modulation) at a receiver located to the right of centerline, and the 90 Hz signal is more prominent to the left. The cockpit instrument uses the difference between the modulation strengths of the two received signals to indicate left or right deviation from centerline.

Carrier frequency pairings
Localizer (LOC) and glide path (G/P) (a.k.a. glide slope [G/S]) carrier frequencies are paired so that the navigation radio automatically tunes the G/S frequency which corresponds to the selected LOC frequency. The LOC signal is in the 110 MHz range while the G/S signal is in the 330 MHz range.

LOC carrier frequencies range between 108.10 MHz and 111.95 MHz (with the 100 kHz first decimal digit always odd, so 108.10, 108.15, 108.30, etc., are LOC frequencies and are not used for any other purpose).

Localizer in cockpit

The localizer indicator is (on most aircraft manufactured from the late 1950s) shown below the Attitude Indicator, but is still a part of this instrument together with the glide path indicator and the cross in the center of the instrument which is called flight director.

The glide path scale is located to the right of the attitude sphere. On aircraft which have a mechanical gyro compass are both the localizer and glide path indicated as a vertical and a horizontal arrow in the compass as well. But they are essentially read in the same way. On some aircraft is only the glide path indicated on two main instruments, and the oldest version of ILS-instruments was an instrument of its own used instead. This used two dangling bars, fixed in the middle of the top (localizer indicator) and in the middle of the left side (glide path indicator), and if the aircraft was located on the intended glide path, the dangling bars formed a cross. This is, in theory, however, more difficult to learn—but even for pilots experienced with using such indicators, it added another instrument they needed to focus on. With the indicators added to the artificial horizon (and to the compass), the pilot can theoretically watch the attitude simultaneously with the localizer and glide path.

In modern cockpits, the localizer is seen as a colored dot (usually in the shape of a diamond) at the bottom of the artificial horizon. It does not appear during cruise, but comes up during the descent and approach to the selected runway, provided that the navigation radio is set to the ILS frequency of that specific runway. If the transmitted localizer beam, which usually, but not always, is directed in the heading of the runway extension (exceptions exist, for instance, in Innsbruck, Austria and in Macao). If the aircraft is located on this line, the localizer dot will appear in the middle of the scale. But if the aircraft is located a little left of the beam, the marker will appear to the right on the localizer gauge scale in cockpit. The pilot then knows he or she must adjust the heading towards the dot. In older cockpits, the localizer scale below the artificial horizon is rather short. But in older style cockpit instrumentation, the localizer also appears as an arrow in the gyro compass below the artificial horizon. The top and bottom of this arrow "is one unit", which shows current heading. But the middle part of this arrow is moving independently of the aircraft's heading. The middle of that arrow could be described as being "stand alone", and moves to the left if the aircraft is located to the right of localizer beam and to the right if the aircraft is located to the left of the localizer beam. When the arrow is "united" to a straight line, then the aircraft is following the localizer beam. (This second "arrow-indicator" is omitted in modern cockpits, but the main compass is still located below the artificial horizon.)

The very first generation of localizer gauges had a different cockpit interface, and were not included in the artificial horizon nor any compass, but at a gauge of its own. The localizer was then represented as a dangling stick hanging from a fixed point at the top of a separate gauge, and the glide path was represented by a similar, but horizontal, dangling stick, fixed at one of the sides of the gauge. When the aircraft was located exactly at the ILS-beam (or glide path) the two sticks formed a cross. This interface resembles the flight director, which also forms a cross, but on the artificial horizon. This older ILS instrumentation system was omitted around the same time as jet airliners like Boeing 707 and DC 8 were introduced.

The expression "catch the localizer" refers to runway approaches with the autopilot engaged. The angle between the aircraft heading and localizer beam should be less than 30 degrees, and the indicated airspeed at least below 250 knots (for jet airliners), then by pushing a button marked "APP" or "ILS", then the autopilot presumably will turn and then follow the localizer. The autopilot will then also automatically descend according to the glide path. Normal procedure is to capture the localizer first and then follow the glide path as well. If the angle is too large or the airspeed too high, capturing the localizer may be unsuccessful.

The cockpit ILS indicators are not to be confused with the flight director, which also places vertical and horizontal lines on the artificial horizon. A flight director only shows how the autopilot would fly. If the localizer dot (or arrow) indicate runway is to be found to the left, but the flight director suggests a right turn, and the runway is not visible, then the pilot in command is having difficulties.

Localizer at runways

When the glide path is unserviceable, the localizer element can often be conducted as a separate non-precision approach; or a standalone instrument approach installation without an associated glide path, both are abbreviated as 'LOC' (or 'LLZ' prior to 2007.)

title: Instrument landing system localizer


text:
Talk:Jewish left

Original contributor
Jayjg, I did not create this article. Why the original contributor chose not to describe organizations on the Jewish left is beyond me. Nonetheless, groups idenitifed as being "the Jewish left" are not the only Jewish groups that have taken "left", or liberal positions. Any article on the Jewish left would have to mention this important distinction: Jewish groups often take liberal positions on many issues, but being liberal often is not the same being very liberal in a determined political sense. Michael Lerner's Tikkun community is one example of the Jewish Left; while the CCAR and RA are not. It is the job of an encyclopedia to explain and clarify such things. RK 23:42, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand that you did not create it, but the article is about the Jewish left. If it described a number of groups on the Jewish left, and then went on to briefly say that certain other Jewish groups often take liberal positions, but are not considered part of the Jewish left, that would be fine, but having an article on the Jewish Left almost solely focus on groups which are not part of the Jewish Left makes no sense. Jayjg 02:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't entirely understand the need for this article. The very existance of it seems to imply that most Jews are on the right of the political spectrum, which is far from accurate. If one would want to make a comprehensive list of (non-Israeli) Jews who are on the left, one would be busy for quite a while. Even when noting celebrities, one would have to keep in mind practically all the Jewish people in the US entertainment business (eg. Woody Allen, Natalie Portman, Jerry Seinfeld, Jeff Goldblum, etc.) --Alan Phoenix 13:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added lots of material to this page. It still needs more work - e.g. citations. I hope other editors will build on what I've added - feel free to rip it apart! BobFromBrockley 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Some things that maybe should be added: Ameinu, Hashomer Hatzair, Jewish Currents, International Workers OrderBobFromBrockley 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-Zionist Jewish nationalism
Article currently says: "There were non-Zionist left-wing forms of Jewish nationalism, such as territorialism (which called for a Jewish national homeland, but not necessarily in Palestine), autonomism (which called for non-territorial national rights for Jews in multinational empires) and the folkism, advocated by Simon Dubnow, (which celebrated the Jewish culture of the Yiddish-speaking masses)." An anonymous editor inserted a comment to the effect that it is not clear if "the latter" (folkism?) should be considered part of the Jewish left. What do other editors think? BobFromBrockley 10:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Walther Rathenau definitely wasn`t a "leading figure in the Jewish Left". He was, at best, a centrist (Big-L) liberal. Marxist philosopher Georg Lukacs even claimed he had detected proto-fascist tendencies in some of Rathenau`s political writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.238.50 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Traditional religious values section
This section has some major problems. First, it to be clear that these are not necessarily the interpretations that all or even most leading religious figures would place on these sources. As it stands now, the article implies that it is universaly accepted that the concept of the jubilee year implies a divine mandate to redistribution of wealth. Such interpretations do exist, but they are certainly not universal, and quite possibly minority. Similarly, more examples are needed in place of a broad assertion that numerous such sources exist (and these will need to be properly qualified and sourced). Also, I was not aware that hospitality to strangers is a uniquely left-wing value. If the article means to imply charity to be a feature of the left, this too will have to be justified as a uniquely leftist value. I have more than half a mind to erase the whole section and replace it with some vague statement to the effect that the jewish left claims sources in traditional texts, etc. Thoughts? -NeverWorker (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Relations with the Palestinian left
There ought to be additional information on how the Jewish left interacts with other ethnic left-wing movements, especially with the Arab and Palestinian left. Many Palestinian leftists are apparently unhappy that their fellow Jewish leftists are often relunctant to criticize the state of Israel and to call for the creation of a Palestinian State. They feel that the Jewish left merely advances the cause of Zionist imperialism and that it has no solutions to offer for economically and politically oppressed social and ethnic minorities around the world. ADM (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish left figures in the Arab World
Nothing (yet) over the Jewish left activists in the Arab World, e.g. the Egyptians Henri Curiel, Hillel Schwartz and Marcel Israël, and the Moroccans Abraham Serfaty and Sion Assidon (founding Secretary General and now member of the National council of Transparency Maroc and since 2005 member of the board of directors of Transparency International). --Pylambert (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention Georges Adda (1916-2008), Jewish leader of the Tunisian Communist Party. --Pylambert (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are the Yippies?
The Yippie movement was started by left-wing Jews, including Abbie Hoffman, Anita Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Nancy Kurshan, and Paul Krassner. No mention of them at all in this article seems to be an oversight. Of course it wasn't a Jewish only organization, but the co-founders followed the liberal jewish philosophy of confronting the powerful in an especially humorous fashion. How can they be left out? 173.16.88.96 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Skip Stone

Horrible pre-packaged sidebars
This article presents the classic example of why cookie-cutter sidebar portals and footers are worse than useless. Instead of useful and interesting graphics, one after another after another after another of the cardboard portals is jammed onto this article. It needs surgery!!! Carrite (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the Jewish one should stay and the socialism and politics ones should go. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
Should neoconservatism not be mentioned? It is quite popular with Jewish intellectuals (one reason might be that it is pro-Israel), and it shares a lot (tends to be almost identical) with the liberal intervenationalists mentioned in the article. Duckelf (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Israeli left
Amnon Rubinstein is not "left". He is a centrist libral-democrat. The hebrew wikipedia site says he supported Etzel when he was young. He may be perceived as being on the left because he was mainly active politically in the Begin & Shamir years when the whole system leaned strongly to the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.35.248 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits by "Steady diet"
Steady diet made a series of POV changes that I'm trying to correct, even though Shabazz thinks I'm the one pushing a POV agenda, for some strange reason (he didn't explain his reverts so far). Therefore, I'll explain my edits:

 * 1) Anybody doubts that the term support is more neutral than "solidarity", specially when it comes to a controversial conflict?
 * 2) Since when the Anti-Defamation League is "right-wing Zionist"? No source is provided to assert that those Jewish organizations are "right-wing".
 * 3) The alleged "Jewish support" for the Trump administration and affiliated white nationalists needs to be attributed since it's not an indisputable fact, but a problematic claim made by those left-wing organizations, that's why I added quotation marks.
 * 4) I provided several sources to show that most of those South African activists were affiliated to Communist organizations, some of them were their leaders, so I don't understand what's the objection.--Satameas (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comments. Here are my responses. You'll have to forgive my brevity, but I'm working on my smartphone.
 * 1) "Support" is more neutral. I'll leave it.
 * 2) Your edit to the sentence about right-wing Jewish groups makes nonsense of it, and it slanders the Jews who oppose those right-wing Jewish organizations. Are you seriously asserting that the new Jewish groups formed because they oppose AIPAC's "support for Israel"? There's a term for that -- POV pushing.
 * 4) The left-wing Jewish Rivonia defendants were also all men, and I can cite multiple sources that say so. The key question is whether it's relevant, and you need to demonstrate that it's not just well-poisoning.
 * Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I'll remove "right-wing" and "support for Israel" since both of them are unsourced. I'll leave simply "political position", which is neutral, because saying that groups like ADL are "right-wing Zionists" is ridiculous. You didn't respond my third point, which explains the need to attribute the alleged Jewish support for Trump and "white nationalists" (as if there were a single Jewish group in the world that supported white nationalism).--Satameas (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When an editor adds "anti-Zionist" in an article, it can only be pov-ed.
 * I add that according to ARBPIA3, you cannot edit this article. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Article claims to be about the Jewish left but does not mention the name of KARL MARX
Karl Marx was jew. Why does his name not appear in this article? Hard to believe this is some kind of innocent oversight.

"Childhood and early education: 1818–1836 Marx was born on 5 May 1818 to Heinrich Marx (1777–1838) and Henriette Pressburg (1788–1863). He was born at Brückengasse 664 in Trier, a town then part of the Kingdom of Prussia's Province of the Lower Rhine.[18] Marx was ethnically Jewish. His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx.[19]" GoldenFroggy (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

 * For some reason, you misquoted the article about Marx, which goes on to say:
 * Prior to his son's birth, and after the abrogation of Jewish emancipation in the Rhineland,[20] Herschel converted from Judaism to join the state Evangelical Church of Prussia, taking on the German forename of Heinrich over the Yiddish Herschel.[21] ... Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire.
 * Karl Marx was born to a non-religious father who had converted from Judaism. Karl never asserted a Jewish identity and had no known association with the Jewish community. So why should he be prominent in an article about the Jewish left? Because his grandfathers were rabbis? You're going to have to do better than that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 * The term refers to Jewish groups that are part of the left, often with their own Yiddish publications, which would not describe Marx. TFD (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Worldwide
The article as it stands is heavily focused on Ashkenazi Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, and this does not represent the reality of the history of the Jewish left. For example, an article today from AJS Perspectives says in an almost throwaway comment:
 * In places like Salonica, home to the largest Judeo-Spanish-speaking community, Jewish socialists promoted Judeo-Spanish as the language of the Jewish proletariat and designated it as the official language of social and economic discourse for the Socialist Workers' Federation.

Additionally, Naeim Giladi argues in "The Jews of Iraq" that:
 * In many countries, including the United States and Iraq, Jews represented a large part of the Communist party. In Iraq, hundreds of Jews of the working intelligentsia occupied key positions in the hierarchy of the Communist and Socialist parties.

And there was also, for example, Henri Alleg, a Sephardic Jewish communist leader in Algeria. These are just a few things I've come across without even trying to research this question, which all seem to counter the narrative of Jewish leftism being primarily a Central/Eastern European phenomenon. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Jewish Maoism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Jewish Maoism should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. BDD (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jewish left


text:
User talk:Mth~enwiki

Hi Mth, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out the Help centre, the FAQs, or the Manual of Style; otherwise, don't hesitate to ask questions at my talk page, or at the Village Pump.

The most important thing to remember is to be bold when editing and creating pages!

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, it is a good idea to sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~. This will autmatically add your username and a timestamp. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

Above all, have fun!

TPK 23:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Mth. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Mth~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mth~enwiki


text:
User talk:Tslag

Hi Tslag, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out the Help centre, the FAQs, or the Manual of Style; otherwise, don't hesitate to ask questions at my talk page, or at the Village Pump.

The most important thing to remember is to be bold when editing and creating pages!

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, it is a good idea to sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~. This will autmatically add your username and a timestamp. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

Above all, have fun!

Invite
Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW, a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

TPK 23:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Radiohead itch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Radiohead itch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Eisenhower dollar.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Eisenhower dollar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tslag


text:
The Hilarious House of Frightenstein

The Hilarious House of Frightenstein is a Canadian children's television series, which was produced by Hamilton, Ontario's independent station CHCH-TV in 1971. It was syndicated both in Canada and internationally, and occasionally still appears in some television markets. In Canada, the series has not aired on broadcast TV for several years, and used to be available on the streaming service Crave. 100 episodes are now available on the free streaming service Tubi (2021).

A quirky sketch comedy series that included some educational content amid its zany humour, the show's cast included Billy Van, Fishka Rais, Guy Big, Mitch Markowitz, Vincent Price, and Julius Sumner Miller. Van played most of the characters on the show. All 130 episodes were made in a nine-month span starting in 1971; the scenes with Miller were all filmed within one summer, and Price taped all of his scenes in four days.

In 2018, Headspinner Productions, the production firm of Ken Cuperus and Michelle Melanson, announced that it had acquired licensing and merchandising rights to the series, and was exploring the possibility of creating a new reboot. In 2021, the company announced an animated version for preschoolers, titled Happy House of Frightenstein.

In 2019, spoken word label Bleak December Inc completed a brand new full-cast audio production, Return to Frightenstein. The audio drama is a licensed production featuring Malcolm McDowell standing in for Vincent Price as host, Canadian actor Anthony D.P. Mann voicing several of the characters (including The Count, The Librarian, The Oracle and Dr. Pet Vet), Steven Spencer as Igor, and original series actor and co-producer Mitch Markowitz returning as Super Hippy. Other voice actors include Nikolas Yuen as The Wolf, Man!, Terry Wade as Bwana Clyde Batty, comedian Dave Hudson as Harvey Wallbanger, and Anne-Marie Bergman as Grizelda. The album has been announced for release in quarter three of 2019.

Origins
The production started with Riff Markowitz envisioning the concept and then inviting a room full of creative friends to a spaghetti and champagne 'brainstorming' dinner party in his double suite at the Windsor Arms Hotel in Toronto.

CHCH had broadcast two other Markowitz shows: The Randy Dandy Show for children, starring Rafael Markowitz as Randy Dandy; and The Ed Allen Show, an exercise program. CHCH approved the production of Frightenstein to take advantage of the station's new ability to reach into the Toronto market for advertising money.

Horror icon Vincent Price starred in introductions for the show's various segments. Price, who was attracted to the project because he wanted to do something for kids, filmed all of his nearly 400 segments in four days for a fee of $13,000. Julius Sumner Miller, an American scientist and TV personality, appeared in every episode; although he put on a "mad scientist" persona, his segments featured straightforward science lessons and experiments.

On Canadian television stations, the show generally aired as a children's show in an after-school or weekend morning time slot. In the United States, however, many stations aired it in a late night slot aimed primarily at college students. In an interview with film critic Richard Crouse on CFRB in the 2010s, Markowitz's brother Mitch Markowitz — also an associate producer and bit-part performer on the show — acknowledged that while he and his brother always recognized the show had kid appeal because of the zany monster characters and lowbrow humour, it was always intended to also appeal to a young adult audience of alternative comedy fans. In some American markets, the show drew higher ratings than The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson among that demographic.

Writers of the series included Markowitz, Paul K. Willis and Michael Boncoeur.

Characters
Although each episode was nominally structured around the basic narrative premise of Count Frightenstein's efforts to revive Brucie J. Monster, a Frankenstein-like monster, only some sketches (including the first sketch of each episode) directly addressed the premise itself, while most sketches depicted unrelated goings-on around the castle. Only the two main characters appeared in the "plot" sketches, although they could also appear in other sketches as well, while the supplementary characters generally only appeared in their own standalone sketches and were not part of the core "plot" sketches. This was primarily due to Van playing most featured character; Van never appeared opposite Miller or Price on screen.

Main

 * Count Frightenstein (Van), the main character, was the 13th son of Count Dracula. Exiled to Castle Frightenstein in Frankenstone for his failure to revive Brucie, the core premise of the show was that he would be allowed to return to Transylvania only when (and if) he succeeded in his quest. Count Frightenstein was also a "black sheep" vampire in other ways, including his strong preference for eating pizza rather than drinking human blood. He also fancies himself an inventor, although his inventions generally have one of three faults: they are either dangerous, useless, or already a common household object upon which his version is not an improvement.
 * Igor (Fishka Rais) was Frightenstein's incompetent assistant.

Supporting
Supporting characters were played by Billy Van, except where specified.

 * The Wolfman – A werewolf disk jockey at radio station EECH who spun rock and roll records while doing a Wolfman Jack impression. The Wolfman's theme song was Sly and the Family Stone's "I Want to Take You Higher". The segment featured then-current hit singles by The Rolling Stones, Sly and the Family Stone, Three Dog Night or other Top 40 radio stars of the time (which were referred to as ‘golden oldies’ in order to avoid dating the program), with the Wolfman and Igor dancing in silhouette against a psychedelic background. Due to licensing reasons, the musical numbers are no longer shown on some reruns, although broadcasts on YTV in the early 2000s included the segments.
 * The Grammar Slammer – The Grammar Slammer was a disembodied voice (Van) who challenged Igor to correct grammatical errors, accompanied by an eight-foot purple monster named Bammer (worn and voiced by Joe Torbay) who threatened to beat up Igor if he failed.
 * The Professor (Julius Sumner Miller) – A professor who provided genuine science lessons on such things as thermal expansion and the cartesian diver.
 * Bwana Clyde Batty – A British explorer who teaches about wild animals on Zany Zoo. His name is a spoof of animal trainer Clyde Beatty. His catchphrase is "ooga booga!"
 * Dr. Pet Vet – A veterinarian who teaches about domestic animals (whereas Zany Zoo was about wild fauna). He always offers the day's animal to Igor as a pet, but the Sloth in the basement invariably refuses to allow Igor to keep the animal. There were episodes in which Pet Vet did not actually appear on cameera, but would communicate with Igor over the phone after sending the day's animal over.
 * Grizelda, the Ghastly Gourmet – A witch voiced as a parody of Julia Child, who provides a version of a television cooking show as she cooks suitably ghastly recipes in her cauldron. In every one of her segments, she bangs her head on the pot above her cauldron and finally tastes her recipe with a loud slurping sound (sometimes declaring the recipe a failure after it causes a small explosion).
 * The Librarian – An elderly curmudgeon who unsuccessfully tries to scare the viewers by reading children's stories, such as "Humpty Dumpty" and "Henny Penny", which he thinks are horror stories. He also sometimes reads fables with unpleasant endings. He eventually admits to not being any more frightened than the viewers, but considers reading important nonetheless.
 * The Maharishi – A Hindu guru who shares bits of mystically inscrutable wisdom (e.g. "It is written, that he who kicks the blind beggar, in the marketplace, during an eclipse, can only curse the camel, for its lack of discipline.") A large bag of flowers (dyed carnations) would then fall on top of his head, after which he would make the peace sign.
 * The Oracle – A mystic who reads out horoscopes in a Peter Lorre voice, invariably knocking over and breaking his crystal ball in the process. He also would often get his hand temporarily stuck inside his replacement crystal ball. He then answers questions supposedly sent in from viewers.
 * The Mini-Count (Guy Big) is a three-foot tall clone of the Count, who appears in brief sketches where he tells a joke. Big was originally slated to play the main role as the Count, as the original character concept was based in part on the sight gag of a diminutive Count contrasted against Igor's imposing height and weight. However, Big was not experienced enough as an actor to properly maintain Count Frightenstein's desired accent, so the role was recast to star Van while a new smaller role was written for Big.

Puppets
Puppet characters were performed by puppeteer Joe Torbay.

 * Harvey Wallbanger – The postmaster of Castle Frightenstein's "dead letter office", he would appear in sketches with the Count or Grizelda in which they answer letters.
 * Gronk – A purple sea serpent who interacts with the Count or the Wolfman. Gronk would announce his presence with a loud call of "Gronk!" Gronk's segments usually had the Count reading a book; the Count would then start explaining what the book was about, with Gronk interrupting him, usually mid-sentence, with a completely incorrect conclusion to what the Count had been reading.  This would happen several times, leading to greater and greater frustration on the part of the Count. Segments with the Wolfman were generally one-line or two-line jokes.
 * Bammer – A large purple monster who assisted the Grammar Slammer in correcting Igor's poor grammar.

Minor or interstitial characters

 * Super Hippy (Mitch Markowitz) — A hippie in a superhero costume who appears leading in and out of commercials, sitting or flying in varying locations as he delivers some variation on "Don't change the channel; we'll be right back after these commercials".
 * The Singing Soldier (Van) — A light-operetta styled palace guard who gets a cream pie thrown in his face whenever he starts to sing "Indian Love Call" from Rose-Marie.
 * The Mosquito (Mitch Markowitz) – A mosquito who tells a bad joke about insects before biting a human foot.
 * The Gorilla (Van or Paul Schultz) – A gorilla who would walk out of the jungle and invariably try to scare whomever he was looking at. In every segment, however, he would be thwarted by a ping-pong ball that would hit him square in the head, causing him to keel over. He often tried to avoid the ping-pong balls, in one instance by holding up a parasol.

Home media
On October 18, 2005, Empire Pictures released a single DVD featuring a handful of half-hour U.S.-syndicated episodes. The most significant change for these episodes as broadcast (apart from the length) was the addition of a laugh track.

On October 17, 2006, Alliance Atlantis Home Video in Canada released a three-disc box set of 13 full-length episodes, with restored Wolfman segments. The shows are not in chronological order, as only episodes that had thus far obtained music clearances for the Wolfman dance segments were included. The Wolfman theme, Sly & the Family Stone's "I Want to Take You Higher", had not yet been cleared, so the opening was altered with new music by the Tijuana Bibles from Toronto, and Van's voice was redubbed by another Toronto voice actor, as Van himself had died in 2003. For recent airings in Canada on the cable networks Drive-In Classics and Space, the main Frightenstein theme is also a re-recording, because of licensing restrictions by Morning Music, Ltd.

Critical Mass Releasing Inc. of Toronto released the series in 2006 for broadcast on CHUM Television stations.

A second set of nine episodes was released by Critical Mass in late 2008.

On July 19, 2019, the entire series, without the Wolfman segments, became available to stream on Crave in Canada.

Memorable quotes

 * Opening Poem – Vincent Price – "Another lovely day begins, for ghosts and ghouls with greenish skin. So close your eyes and you will find that you've arrived in Frightenstein. Perhaps the Count will find a way to make his monster work today. For if he solves this monster-mania, he can return to Transylvania! So welcome where the sun won't shine, to the castle of Count Frightenstein!" (this dissolved into maniacal laughter).
 * National Anthem – Igor/Fishka Rais – "Gory, gory Transylvania! Where wolves and bats will always maim ya. The murky moors will likely claim ya, As we go stumbling through, through, through, through." Sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Sung once by Igor before the Count recites the Pledge, hummed by him during the Count's Pledge, and repeated afterwards by him as a big finish ("Gory, gory, Transylvania! As we go stumbling...") usually topped off by the Count singing the last word ("through!").
 * Pledge – Count/Billy Van – "I pledge by the sign of the three-toed sloth, that I will do my best to do my duty. To always obey the laws of the werewolf pack. And to never rest, until Brucie lives once more, and takes his rightful place in the annals of distinguished monsters, and I can once again return to that most goriest of homelands..." (many times the Count is showing off his heart-shaped three-toed sloth pendant (on an elastic black string around his neck) to the camera. After the first line, he lets go of it, it flies back against his throat, and the Count does a choked/injured double take before going on with the rest of the Pledge).
 * Closing Poem – Vincent Price – "The castle lights are growing dim. There's no one left but me-and him. [he nods towards Brucie behind him] When next we meet in Frankenstone...don't come alone."

Legacy
The Hilarious House of Frightenstein was referenced in the first episode of the Ed the Sock program This Movie Sucks!, which is another program produced and broadcast by CHCH. In the episode the hosts refer to them being in a studio that has produced many classic television shows, and Ed comments that they have the coffee maker from The Hilarious House of Frightenstein, along with the original coffee.

Comedian Mike Myers acknowledged the show as an important formative influence on his comedy in his 2016 book Mike Myers' Canada.

James "Jimbo" Insell, a Canadian drag queen most noted for competing on the first season of Canada's Drag Race, cited The Hilarious House of Frightenstein as one of the models for House of Jimbo, a comedy/variety series he plans to produce.

Return to Frightenstein, a full-cast audio play produced by Bleak December was released on streaming platforms in September, 2019.

Happy House of Frightenstein, an animated reboot which follows the adventures of Count Jr., Igor, Griselda, the Wolfman and Gronk as children, premiered on Family Jr. in 2021.

title: The Hilarious House of Frightenstein