text:
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 3

Writer Beware
Like entries on similar organizations such as Scientology or The Local Church of Witness Lee, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and energetically reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their headquarters, the Watchtower Society. Try it.

Darkness fears most the bright light of day.

From an active Jehovah's Witness
I'm not sure anyone's going to see this, as I'm really new to Wikipedia and if it works the way it *appears* to work, then I'm more confused than ever, but I figured I would give it a shot anyway. I discovered the entry for Jehovah's Witnesses a few days ago, and I revisited it this morning. Increasingly, I am amazed at just how comprehensive, fair and correct it is. Being, as I am, a veteran of alt.religion.jehovahs-witn for a number of years, I am unable to fathom a free online community producing something as appropriate as this article. I reviewed the history of the page, and I see the evolution and the infighting, but I must admit, I'm still stunned at the veracity of the current result. I can't imagine how to improve it, and believe me, I'm a guy with plenty of opinions. Because of this, I would like to applaud those of you who have contributed to it. Pat yourselves on the back, folks - this is a great piece of work. Agentseven

Anonymity-I am, admitedly, nervous about this entire forum. I too am an active Jehovah's Witness. My nervosity stems from the premise of Wikipedia itself. Can a lake of opinions let us drink from the ocean of facts? Or are we to drown inside knowing not which way is up? I do, however, agree with Agentseven (which, until just now, I thought was a German name). This is a very admirable project you have set before yourselves. I read the article and was amazed by its accuracy. Some of the information is inaccessible to nonbelievers. It's not that we wouldn't give it; it's merely that nobody ever asks. I.e.: the MP3 comment in the article. Only recently have I myself been aware that MP3's were available through our headquarters. We received a letter to our congregation describing the new media forms available for our congregation to order. So, naturally, the fact that you contain this information is impressive and leads me to the conclusion that other Jehovah's Witnesses are contributing to the article. But then I clicked on the discussion tab and found what I was expecting to find. So many views, and each having the personal value of a child to his father. I do not want to step on toes or rend myself from objectivity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that some of you are sincerely curious about Jehovah's Witnesses and it is therefore my duty see to it that you receive whatever information you demand to know about this Christian faith (1 Peter 2:15). And, consequently, I am speaking in the second person perspective without having any particular individual in mind. Your online encyclopedia is the least slanderous to Jehovah's Witnesses I have observed save Watchtower.org itself! And that is saying a great deal in your favor. Take this as a mission statement, but I plan to humbly insert whatever contributions I can to this discussion page. I researched each of your bios and didn't find many if any Jehovah's Witnesses (except Agentseven who I can't link to, and those of you without a bio description). I thought it may be prudent to allow a Jehovah's Witness to represent Jehovah's Witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however.

Don't even bother noting that Jehovah's Witnesses are "controversial"
Such disclaimers will be censored.

The problem with the redundant links as I see it, is that the words that are highlighted are generic words. "controversy", "doctrine", "practices". Given the over-active linking that goes on in other parts of the Wiki, a regular user could be forgiven for thinking that those links were to generic word discussions, and not specific to Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore the links are not only redundant, but misleading. Since those articles are linked below in a way that is NOT ambiguous or misleading, we are better off without them. --Clutch
 * If this encyclopedia were paper, your reasoning would make sense. But it is not paper, and your thinking limits the value of this medium.  Hyperlinking is not merely a footnote, but an aid to stream-of-consciousness.  Links indicate an extended scope of intention, which the author recommends that the reader may follow in order to understand what cannot be expanded in the immediate context without making the sentence too difficult to comprehend.  As a flat document, the article could be reasonably interpreted in a nonsensical way, because of how much cannot be said in one sentence.  With a link in the appropriate context, however, the terms as they are being used in the context can be helpfully elucidated, and the reader comes to a better understanding of the fact that the entry is not a comprehensive explanation of the reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses have so many enemies, and indeed cannot be.  For this reason, Clutch, you will very likely find that you have a lonely opinion. These links are not redundant, misleading, or ambiguous.  They are a helpful use of A large part of peoples difficulty with Lir was that he was linking in unrelated words all over the place.  And he wasn't the only one.  The Wikipedia is full of articles where the links just point to generic terms, NOT to specific discussions of issues relevant to the article.  Given that bad experience, people aren't going to look at the links, they will just see the generic words linked and view it as more kiddie unprofessionalism on our (the editors) part.  The links are already at the bottom of the article, clearly marked as to what they are.  If someone wants to read about JW practices, doctrines, or controversies, the links are clearly marked and available.  Stream of consciousness at this time is best assisted by the links at the end of the article. --Clutch

 * Mr. Editor, I wish to withdraw my subscription to your editorial column. Where may I send my cancellation notice?  I had not realized when I signed up for your tracts that they would present only one person's obscure perspective and idiomatic use of language.  If my subscription for the "neutral" version produced by the cooperative process described in your literature has been misplaced, if such a publication exists, and if I may be assured of the product advertised, please disregard this request.  Mkmcconn

The links in question are in an article about the Jehovah's Witnesses, and they link to other, related articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's as simple as that, and thus it is appropriate. And the point of the links to the opposing Web sites is to provide links to "opposing viewpoints," not "anti-Jehovah's Witness" sites. In fact, the link to the Watchtower Observer was deletet, because that site was considered to be too biased by the users here. -- Modemac

 * Why don't you also then link to Luther's condemnation of the Catholic church in the Catholicism article? Or to the many Protestant websites that describe how Catholics are devil-worshipping "Papists"?  Why not?  Because it's not properly related to the article.  Nor are those "Opposing Viewpoint" articles you insist on linking. --Clutch

Because, as has been said before, the Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed a controversial organization. They are viewed with suspicion by many other religious organizations, and the links to those sites are there as examples of such. The links in question offer viewpoints about the Jehovah's Witnesses that contrast with the "official" viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Hence, they are opposing viewpoints. -- Modemac

 * Because, as has been said before, the Catholic Church is indeed a controversial organization. It is viewed with suspicion by many other religious organizations, and links to those sites are there as examples of such.  The links in question offer viewpoints about the Catholic Church that contrast with the "official" viewpoint of the Catholic Church.  Hence, they are opposing viewpoints.

 * You see how silly that sounds as a justification for linking Protestant websites to the Catholicism article? Why can't  you see the similarity to what you are doing to the JW article? --Clutch

I already answered this, way up at the beginning of this page. I'll repeat this answer for convenience: "As far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, there is only one organization (the Witnesses themselves) promoting the point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses; there are many organizations and groups worldwide who question that opinion and offer alternating viewpoints. This is why the opposing viewpoints are necessary. This is also why I call it 'opposing viewpoints'"...and not "anti-Jehovah's Witness" sites. If you want to go add opposing viewpoint links to the Catholicism article, then go ahead and do so -- this is Wikipedia, you can make any changes that you think are necessary. I'm not interested in the Catholicism article, I'm not interested in the Holocaust article; this discussion is about *this* article, and why opposing viewpoints are a legitimate entry here. -- Modemac

 * Links to criticisms of catholicism definitely have a place in the respective article. I will add relevant ones as soon as I find the time. --Eloquence

Anonymity-I will not get into the mistakes the Catholics have been condemned by society for, but the links themselves have special significance to what I am about to say. There was a discourse given to us a while back about the internet. While it is a wealth of information and resources, it is also a realm of near-anarchy; which in turn leads to frequent incredibility and incredulity. Our advice was to avoid giving much attention to religious web sites. Even those that claim to be hosted by fellow Jehovah's Witnesses (Romans 16:17). There is no gaurantee that anyone is who they claim to be on the internet. This opens the possibility of stumbling upon an "apostate"-those who actively and maliciously oppose our work. Quickly before I move on, I wanted to address the use of "point of view." Being a Jehovah's Witness does not mean having a viewpoint, it means having viewpoints. I would think this is the same in all religions, but a viewpoint about creed is a philosophy, while a cornucopia of viewpoints about creed is a religion. There is no one word, nor scripture, nor philosophy that equates an entire religion. There may very well be an organization that agrees with a viewpoint the Jehovah's Witnesses do, but there is none that agrees with every single one. If there was, there would be no need to call the two organizations different.

It's silly to keep reverting each other's changes. Should I just protect the article?
 * For protection: (vote here)
 * If this ends this ridiculous affair, then I'm for it. It's petty and unwanted, and I'm still keeping up my end of it because I believe Clutch is being unfair.  -- Modemac

 * Against protection: (or vote here)
 * Not yet. Let's try to talk about this. Q 17:15 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

--Uncle Ed

''This article is only getting half a dozen edits a day. So whatever the problem is, I don't think freezing it is the solution.'' Matthew Woodcraft

Anonymity-Certain statistics will change frequently. For example, there were an average of 709 baptized each day last year (2003). The peak publishers number is a lot more compelling. The membership section would be inaccurate relatively quickly. The different languages the various publications are translated into is ever-expanding. Basically, we are a growing people, maturing constantly, and statistical information especially is hard to keep up with. As regards the history, that wont change. I'm not going to suggest locking it, but I would suggest nonbelievers to not argue over what we believe; that IS silly! You can't make over six million people believe something different because you argue over it on a forum. If you can't decide what we believe, just ask. I'm glad you have the Watchtower.org site listed, it's a great place to find those answers.

Clutch, can you please offer more insight on your change to:

Throughout their history, their doctrines, beliefs, and practices resulted in widespread persecution.

Why the removal of contraversy? And why was your comment for that edit "sp. contraversy", which to me implies you corrected the spelling of contraversy?

Contraversy means people disagree and debate. Were the JW policies (past/present) on blood/vaccination/organs/military service/pledge of allegience/voting, and many others not a source of contraversy? Why have there been landmark court cases over issues if they were not contraversial? Why are there edit wars here if there is not contraversy? Why are there anti-JW sites if there is not contraversy? Was there not contraversy in Germany when JWs were targetted in the Holocaust? What does the word contraversy mean to you? Thanks. Q

 * The word controversy in this case was redundant; if someone doesn't get the idea that the Witnesses are controversial after reading about the First Amendment battles, or the persecution by mobs, they probably aren't members of the human race. Hammering the point unecessarily only serves to alienate and dehumanize the Witnesses, by indicating that the editors agree with the persecutors that they are just controversial nutballs, who deserve whatever they have coming.  It does not serve to inform. --Clutch

I strongly object to the removal of the first amendment information from this article. Rejection of the power of the state is a fundamental part of JW doctrine and history and it belongs here, not segregated off in some other article where no one will bother to go to learn of the great benefit that American democracy has gained from the bravery and steadfastness of the JW in defending their religion. I am surprised that The Cunctator did not propose or even mention this change on the talk page and in fact only gave notice in the neutral summary comment of "refactoring". Ortolan88 18:13 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

You should tone doen the rhetoric. How is "In the United States, there have been several Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses to defend their practice of temporal disengagement (that is, non-participation in activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance), the most important being West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette." quietly tucking away the issue?

Putting information on different interlinked parts of Wikipedia is not segregation, except in a very literal sense.

Be bold in updating pages, and expect that everyone is working toward the same goal.

--The Cunctator

 * If I had been bold in updating, I would have updated the whole topic right back into this article where it belongs. Instead, I am (pretty much politely) discussing the move in the talk pages of this and the related article, which I very much would have preferred you do before making this arbitrary move (particularly considering all the funny business (not by you) that the JW article family has undergone).  I am still waiting for some kind of reason for doing it.  See the other talk page for my observations.  Ortolan88

"Several Supreme Court cases" is not the same as "many Supreme Court cases". The latter is the case. There were 23 Supreme Court cases brought by witnesses in 8 years. That is many not several. I am not stupid enough to try to straighten this out while two combatants (neither of whom seem trustworthy) are duking it out, both with axes to grind and warehouses of edits to make against one another and both with unexpressed agendas, but I will be back to these articles after all the dust has died down. So long for now, Ortolan88

It wasn't arbitrary. The basic reason is that it's much easier for people to come to agreement through the editing process on a topic when it's broken up into discrete chunks, *especially for article families that undergo funny business*. This allows entries to be as specific and concise as possible.

For another example of this thinking, the explicit mention of other Christian heretics (and by heretic, I mean someone who rejects the Catholic Church) such as Luther and Peter Waldo doesn't belong on the Jehovah's Witnesses page because the statement that JW are like other heretics that believe that mainstream Christianity got it wrong is doubly superfluous. It's simply completing a syllogism from definitions:
 * 1) heretics believe that mainstream Christianity got it wrong
 * JW, Luther, Waldo, Wycliffe are heretics
 * JW, Luther, Waldo, Wycliffe believe mainstream Christianity got it wrong

That information belongs in pages about heresy and Christian reformation movements or the such.

That said, if I can't convince you, especially if you give yourself a little time to consider the changes, then you chould certainly feel free to change things to whatever situation makes sense to you. --The Cunctator

Characterising JW's as heretics is neither neutral, nor appropriate. Mentioning the other religious reformers like Luther and Waldo is appropriate, as the JW's view themselves as being in a line of descent, spiritually, from those men. Please undo your revert.

 * How is it neither neutral nor appropriate? It wasn't a revert; it was an edit. And the article doesn't even call the religion heretical. Specific discussion of how the JW appeal to Luther, Waldo, etc. should take place at doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why do you keep taking out the fact that, of all the groups persecuted in the Holocaust, only the JW's were beheaded, a punishment usually reserved for traitors and people engaged in political subversion? Why do you take out the fact that mob violence against Witnesses continues today in places like Georgia? Why do you keep putting back in a statement that is not factual (JW's became a centralized organization under Rutherford)?

 * For the first, there's a entire entry for discussion about the treatment of the Witnesses in the Holocaust. The second needs to be put into context and clarified--what does "mob violence" mean, what other groups are threatened, how often, etc. References would help. For the third, I put it in because I didn't see any information to counter that. There needs to be more hard information on the history of JW presented.

Why do you keep putting a link to Arianism in the article? JW's are not Arians, and reject that categorization.

 * So what form of early Christianity does JW harken back to? They certainly seem to be in line with the Arianist rejection of trinitarianism.

What makes you think that your less informative lead paragraph is superior to the one it replaced? You replaced this:

 * Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 1870s as a Bible study group. The members are known for their racially diverse, close-knit brotherhood, door-to-door evangelizing and non-participation in government, including politics and military service.''

With this:

 * Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination founded as a Bible study group in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell as the Bible Students.

Instead of deleting information, could you not have just inserted "are a Christian denomination" in the lead paragraph and left the rest of the information in?

 * That's simply not true. Look again.

Why did you replace the following paragraph:

 * In the United States, there have been many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which have broadened and increased First Amendment protections for all citizens. Some of the most significant of these cases involved their right to not pledge allegiance to the state, to not salute the flag, to refuse service in the military, and to preach in public. (See West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette).

With this:

 * In the United States, there have been several Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which have shaped First Amendment law, to defend their practice of temporal disengagement (that is, non-participation in activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance), the most important being West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette.

What is your basis for saying there were NOT many Supreme Court cases involving JW's? Have you researched this? Why replace the more specific "broadened and increased First Amendment protections" with the less specific "shaped"? Did some of these Supreme Court cases narrow citizens rights and protections? Why did you replace the enumeration of what the cases were about with the single phrase "temporal disengagement"? Half the cases had nothing to do with temporal disengagement, and everything to do with the right to disseminate their literature and preach in public.

 * "several", "many"; I don't care. There needs to be more evidence presented to show exactly how the cases have shaped First Amendment law before it's proper to assert "broadened and increased First Amendment protections", which is a strong claim. I replaced the enumeration with the phrase "temporal disengagement" because none of the cases discussed had to do with public preaching. That is to say, more information needs to be added to Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.

You seem to want to move from concrete statements of fact to general, more vague statements. I ask you; how does this benefit the article? How does such a policy benefit the Wikipedia?

Are you a JW? Were you a JW? How do you know the things you have been writing here Cunctator? What makes you THINK you know those things?

--Clutch

 * No need to raise your voice. All I'm doing is editing. That is to say, I read what is presented, then edit it to say what are the clearly explained points in (what I intend to be) a clear manner. I am not deliberately editing out useful information. If my edits state or imply something incorrect, then you should understand that means that the correct information was not presented well enough for me to understand (or find it plausible or important). --The Cunctator

I'm not getting involved in the theological debate, but one of your statements is incorrect. JWs were not the only victims of the Holocaust to be beheaded. It was a common form of execution in several camps (notably Klooga), and if we are to expand the scope to include victims of Nazi oppression, it was used against the members of the White Rose. Danny

 * Thank you for the clarification. Beheading was the punishment reserved for traitors and people involved in political subversion against the State.  JW's were neither traitors, nor engaged in political work of any sort, subversive or not, but they were beheaded anyway. --Clutch

 * No problems, but it is still not accurately portrayed. Other people were, in fact beheaded (though hanging, shooting, and gassing were far more common). The fact that beheading was commonly (but not exclusively) used for political subversives actually indicates the sources of Nazism's opposition to JWs. Pacifism, failure to salute flags, etc. were deemed politically subversive acts, and punishment was meted out accordingly. This can be constrasted with the Nazis' racial policies against Jews and Gypsies (and to some degree, Slavs), which resulted in death for an accident of birth. In other words, JWs, like Communists, could denounce their beliefs and be accepted as Aryans. Others could not. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of JW victims by age. Were children killed or taken for reeducation, etc. (In no way is this meant to detract from the suffering of JWs under Nazism, but to understand the roots of that oppression.) Danny

 * The issue of beheading could be better explored and clarified, but I'd prefer not to distract Cunctator right now from replying to my complaints against his recent reverts of my edits. --Clutch

 * In Western Europe, beheading has been the form of execution for treason, from ancient times. Mkmcconn 06:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem here, Clutch, is that you seem to be determined to be the final authority on the Jehovah's Witnesses, and all edits to this article have to meet your approval. If not, you erase it and revert it back to your own edit. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The idea here is that users are supposed to improve upon each other's edits...and if the resulting edit is not *exactly* what you intended, then you work with that person to produce a suitable compromise. Working with the other users here does not mean deleting their edits entirely and repeatedly reverting them back to your own. If you ever realize that, then maybe you'll find yourself at the center of fewer edit wars, flame wars, and accusations of censorship. -- Modemac

 * You just indulged in an ad hominem. If instead you would stick to constructive criticism for the article itself, I'm sure the article would benefit from your input. --Clutch

As opposed to accusing the other users here of attacking your religion? -- Modemac

 * That comment makes no sense. --Clutch

Okay, then how about this quote from the top of this article: The people that want the "Opposing Views" in only seem to want the ones that trash the JW religion. -- Modemac

 * Now you are taking things out of context. I don't see that we have anything to say to each other right now. --Clutch

It's funny, Cunctator, that your "edits", trying to "clarify what is presented" consisted of reverting my edits to previous version of things, and changing the characterisation of various facts. Perhaps instead of assuming that what someone wrote was mistaken, and that what they wrote "probably isn't true" and reverting their edits, you could ask for clarification on the Talk page? --Clutch

You know, I was terribly excited at the prospects and future of Wikipedia when I first came across it. Looking at this page has certainly dulled my enthusiasm. I'm seeing a Usenet II developing here. --Michael 08:20 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put the text about Arius back in because the statement is a true statement, and highly relevant. If you read the earlier comments on this talk page, you'll find several Jehovah's Witness sources cited which list Arius as someone who maintained the truth in the past. While JW's may not affirm all of Arius' beliefs, they do affirm the main belief which the First Ecumenical Council condemned, namely that Jesus Christ is a created being. From reading the past discussion on this page, it seems clear that the text about Arius was only removed earlier because Clutch was more persistent than the other editors. Wesley 13:17, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems evident from JW materials that (at least until some point) in writings that seem to be in some sense authoritative, Arius has been considered as much a hero for the Truth as Luther, Wyclif, Waldo, and Paul. So, we won't call JWs Arians for the same reason we don't call them Lutherans - I can understand that reasoning. But it's their connection to Arius, not to Luther, that is controversial. And in being controversial it describes their distinctive. How is that misleading? Mkmcconn \

Isn't the denial of that connection, more misleading? If the expressed intentional purpose of identification with Arius has been to distance JWs from Christendom (which has among other crimes repudiated their hero, Arius), does covering up that connection have the purpose of disguising the JW's repudiation of Christendom? How does that serve the purposes either of the JWs or of reporting the facts? Mkmcconn 05:50, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * The problem with identifying JWs as "Arians" is that this is a label applied to them by people who disagree with them: "Oh, they're just like the Arians". Actually there's no evidence that they were influenced by Arian writing, nor do they consider themselves followers of Arius. If their beliefs agree with those of Arius only on the relationship between God and Jesus, that hardly makes them "Arians". To say "their hero, Arius" is misleading and would be vehemently denied by any JW.

 * As I said, "we won't call JWs Arians for the same reason we don't call them Lutherans". But their literature has repeatedly identified Arius as being on the good-guy side.  That doesn't make them Arians; but it does make them sympathetic with Arius in exactly that respect in which trinitarian Christians repudiate Arius.  (please sign your posts) Mkmcconn — 22:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About the heresy, Mathew 7:13 says "Go in through the narrow gate; becuase broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramp is the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."

Have the people of the god from the bible ever been the strongest, most widely respected people? Had you been a heretic in a good area of time in ancient Isreal, you would have been following him. Daniel, Habakuk, Isaiah, Jeremiah, they were all "heretics." Jesus himself was a "heretic" to the goings about of Isreal of the time. User:Fictisious Oddwobble

Anonymity-Lol! That's an interesting way to look at it. I prefer to think that everybody else was a heretic, and these were the righteous individuals. Heretics don't need to be a minority. Who's more qualified to label someone as a heretic? God or the masses? Jehovah said that the nation of Israel was sinful (Isaiah 1:4). The thing about Arius was that he disagreed with the majority, which doesn't always mean you're wrong. For this they called him a heretic. But that doesn't mean he was a heretic. If the Council of Nacaea was wrong about the origin of Christ, then that would mean they were also wrong about Arius being a heretic. Often in Biblical chronology, nations were as a whole heretical, and certain individuals were the righteous ones. Or...was that your point, Fictisious Oddwobble? That the word "Heretic" is rather pointless and subjective when used by men to other men?

 * True, being in the majority doesn't guarantee you're "right." At first Arianism was a minority view, but for much of the fourth century (including after Nicaea in 325) Arianism was actually in the majority. That's why the second ecumenical council had to condemn it again. There are other times later in the church's history when the "orthodox" position seemed to be in the minority, such as when an emperor was pushing iconoclasm. But this article doesn't need to decide whether JW's or Arians are heretics; the only question is whether it is neutral to note that JW's do agree with Arius on the point for which the first and second ecumenical councils condemned him. The reader is still free to conclude that either the councils were right or Arius was right, or that it's all a bunch of silliness that doesn't matter. AFAICT, this is how NPOV writing working in wikipedia. Wesley 16:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Controversial issues of Jehovah's witnesses
As a Jehovah's witness I can honestly say that our religion does evoke strong reactions from people - There is actually book entitled "The Evocative Religion of Jehovah's Witnesses" (by Matthew Alfs). The inclusion of a section on this topic in this work seems reasonable, whether it is better referred to as "evocative" or "controversial" I don't know. Perhaps "evocative" is a better word?

Unfortunately, many of those who work against J's ws use misinformation, but the good reputation of J's ws is well known by the majority of people and only the most vehement of opposers will refuse to admit so. Therefore it seems to me that whatever links or comments may be included here, the reputation of our religion as a whole will not be damaged.

This is a good work, all the hard work involved is greatly appreciated. (At least by me.)

george

This entry: "To those who would like to make sure whether there are any totalitarian tendencies in their religion or not some useful hints are given in Totalitarian religious group." should either be removed or placed in every article representing a religion, because facets of the definition listed under "Totalitarian religious group" could be applied to every religion in existence. I intend to delete it unless someone replies.

george m

russell's "successor"
The comment: "the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their current name in 1931 under the direction of Charles Taze Russell's successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford."

Implies a line of succesion. Russell never named a successor and Rutherford was elected. I believe the statement: "the Jehovah's Witnesses adopted their current name in 1931 under the direction of the Watchtower Society's second president, Joseph Franklin Rutherford." is better. I am making the change today, please comment here if you have any objections or advice.

should the page be protected?
I am considering deleting the text of the page until this current problem can be resolved. Someone continues to chop up an already concise and accurate article for personal reasons I can find no academic reasons for the actions being taken by this anonymous invidual. Since I am not an admin, Some help please.

 * I think this page should be protected, because it is corrupt by anti-JW. K.M. 01:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone wrote this:

''By faith, Jehovah's Witnesses believe their unique religion to be a restoration of original first-century Christianity as revealed to Mr. Russell. They are known for predicting the exact date of Jesus' physical return to earth. The last prediction was 1974, after which they gave up predicting since it caused a serious loss of membership and business.''

I'm JW but I don't know Jesus' phisycal return. Jehovah's Witnesses didn't believe it. Certainly, some people thought Armagedon would come in 1914 or 1974, but Watch Tower Society denied it. Primarily, JW don't believe Jesus's phisycal return, they believe Jesus's presence. K.M. 07:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anonymity-"being taken by this anonymous invidual." It wasn't me in case you were wondering. Anyway, the 1914 thing: 1914 was, as many should know, the start of WW1. More than that, however, it was the time that the Kingdom of God was established and the "last days" began. It wasn't a physical returning of Christ, however. There are newspapers and magazine quotes before and after 1914 that say the Jehovah's Witnesses predicted a time of unrest and an end to peace at 1914. All that being said, 1975 was not the same (it was 1975 by the way). The current president, Brother Franz, told another who asked about 1975 that Armageddon may or may not happen, but that the point was to not slow down or let up, time was running out for this world. It was not an official prediction or anything like that. 1975 was, some figured out, was 6000 years beyond Adam's birth. Some thought that meant that the end of the seventh day was then. But the sixth creative day didn't end until Eve was created, and the Bible gives no mention of when that happened. It's a case of anxiety. When you wait your entire life for something to come and you don't know when it will, it's a challenge not to put faith into any date people throw out there. The 1975 issue did reassure one thing, though, that nobody knows the day or the hour. Armed with the evidenced fact that there's no way of knowing, we haven't had any more false alarms. It's not that we haven't bothered making any more predictions because we were worried of loosing people.

June 22, 2004 revert
Was there a particular reason for the June 22, 2004 revert of my edits of a few days earlier? --Gary D 20:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a reason, I reverted their revert to restore your changes. Sorry about that, Gary -- seems an odd edit to revert. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Jwrosenzweig. Even as against an anonymous editor, I didn't want to do a quick reversion myself without having a third-party "referee" editor do it or myself allowing some time to pass first, since that smells of starting an edit war. I do understand that these can be touchy topics to edit. To the anonymous editor, I say that I am willing to discuss the reasons for my recent edits. --Gary D 20:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * A great attitude, Gary -- you have the right perspective about this. Exactly what I would have done under the circumstance.  I hope it all ends happily, as it seems to have.  Perhaps the anon was simply testing out reversion to see if it worked? Jwrosenzweig 21:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Mebbee. Thanks again. --Gary D 22:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Our reverter speaks! He or she asks, "why would you delete [from the "see also" section] links to relevant links of doctrine and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?" I deleted these because they are already wikified up in the section, "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses," and I understand the general Wikipedia policy to be not to duplicate text-wikified terms in the "see also" section. However, these being fairly central matters and this being the main article on the topic, I can see why an exception might be made here.

I didn't do the other edits you reverted, except for adding the category "New religious movements", which was defined upon its creation [by me, that's how I know] as including movements back to the mid-nineteenth century. The Mormon guys removed themselves from my category, and I didn't put up too much of a fuss, at least for the time being (I imagine everyone would like their religion considered as established rather than new, and besides, the category is still rather amorphous). I wouldn't put up too much of a fuss here, either, if you gave me a reason to exclude JW. --Gary D 23:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, I have moved the mis-capitalized page to Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, so that the amended, properly-capitalized link on this page now works. Please know, I am not trying to work against you. --Gary D 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 28, 2004 edit
I support the June 28th edit. Moving controversy out of the context-establishing top paragraph is in line with WP style on controversial topics. --Gary D 18:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ecumenical movement
Also persistent is something showing up about the "ecumenical movement"; as though "it" were something that had a negative opinion about those that do not participate in "it". Since the most vocal critics of the JWs are critical precisely in the sense that they wish to exclude JWs from anything ecumenical, I can't even tell if the parties are being ironic, who are complaining about criticism from the "ecumenical movement" to the effect that JWs are wrong because they don't want to be part of it. Anyway, it makes little sense to me, and so I've removed it several times; and without some explanation here, I can't see why I shouldn't remove it whenever it appears. Mkmcconn — 20:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two little points
Firstly; in the article section covering common opposition to this religion, I notice that the most common or initial reason that some people react adversely to Jehovah's Witnesses or similarally stereotyped religions is not mentioned. That is: up-front evangelizing methods. People are reluctant to be exposed to new or differing thoughts or concepts on their doorsteps. E.g. Charity drives, Religions, Sales-people. While mentioned indirectly in the section "...a permit in order to preach from door to door...", it perhaps should be mentioned more explicitally in the opposition section that most people's adverse reactions to Jehovah's Witnesses stem from this door-to-door evangelizing rather than JW doctrine considering that most people 'turn off/tune out' prior to learning any of the JW precepts because of their initial reaction - a reaction that they justify or reenforce by learning and stating JW concepts and practices that they don't like.

Secondly; for a Wiki article to have at the top of the talk page a statement saying 'writers beware' and that edits can't be applied because of an official gangland version is... worrying. Even if it is sardonic. The article doesn't flow quite right and is bit too short for the possible content matter (sub-articles aside) which, considering the Wiki skillbase availiable, is only likely because POVs are tearing at this article like a pack of dogs with a single bone. You should sit back and think 'If I didn't know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses and I wanted a Wiki to help me learn - what should that article explain and how?' When you think about it that way; the way the article doesn't flow right just leaps out at you.

But Religion isn't my primary Wiki forte; so I'll leave to you. - 25th July 2004. (A person)

doubtful cause of opposition
What critics are being described by
 * "Much criticism has also come from the Watchtower Society's reference to itself being the "Faithful and Discrete Slave" of Matthew 24:45-47."

They claim all sorts of provocative things for themselves. I doubt that this claim gets much more attention than anything else. Who thinks that it does? or, is this just more advertizing masquerading as something else? Mkmcconn — 04:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
Is it just me, or have recent edits(past couple of weeks) serverely modified this article, and not in a good way. I don't know, but it just feels lacking compared to when I read it a few weeks ago. Anyone else notice this? -- elykyllek 17:19, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it has been chopped up like it always does. A few months ago it was a thoroughly informative article but it got cut up and any time someone makes a positive or neutral addition about JW's to the article eventually someone with a beef throws in just enough deletions and changes to ruin it. george m

 * Could you be a little more vague please? < /sarcasm > Wesley 04:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymity-I too am curious what changes you are implying. It is the first time today that I stumbled upon Wikipedia, and I'm still here because I find it fascinating that the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses are uniquely accurate. While, given, there are some connotations of words that hide a subtle disapproval of what is being written. Nonetheless there is nothing obviously wrong in the article sections. It's a great step in encyclopedia creation to give everyone an equal authority while retaining the option of ambiguity. I've heard cable documentaries that say Jehovah's Witnesses primarily target poor, middle aged, black women, who are single parents. We preach in countries that don't even have poor, middle aged, black women, who are single parents! The lies about our faith exceed that of any other, to a point that I doubted any nonbeliever really knew what we believed at all. Sometimes succinctness is good; the more information you try to give about a group of people, the more chances you have of being a liar.

Pardon my muddy water. This article was extensive and got tore apart by someone a few months ago. People have done a good job of rewriting it. The comment above caused me to remember it and it obivously helped me into a stupid moment. Apologies. george m

This article is extremley biased in favor of JWs
It is written very obviously by an active JW, with only positive viewpoints about JWism represented. This would be like an article about the Democratic party spouting only wonderful things about them, and never raising popular controversial issues.

The article praises JW involvement in the holocaust, but fails to mention that the JWs themselves were praising hitler in their 1934 yearbook and saying that they also despised jews and jewry. It fails to discuss the controversialness of blood transfusions, or that many children have died because of that particular dogma.

JW Nazi Conciliation

 * For one thing this article is edited by many who are and are not JW's. Second, Former JW's keep trying to use a few words in a single publication produced during a time of extreme duress as the official position of JW's. Ridiculous. The US government and the historians who worked on the US holocaust museum as well as = every other credible historian = have not found this to be an important issue to address. Thirdly you are bringing up issues about subjects dealt with on other pages. george m

 * And is it true that MANY children HAVE DIED because of JW doctrines? In Japanese Wikipedia, that controversy is occured. But it has no evidence. Rantaro 11:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Archive creation - --DannyMuse 05:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 3


text:
Talk:Oxycodone

Roxane Labs or Xanodyne?
The page lists Roxane Laboratories as the distributor of Roxicodone in the U.S. However, http://www.xanodyne.com/products-other.asp would indicate that this trademark would belong to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals. I visited Roxane Labs' site and they don't seem to mention anything about Roxicodone.

an import ref, but not in wiki
In 2007, the profits were just a few billion. As of July 2016, more than $31 billion from OxyContin, the nation's bestselling painkiller.

The OxyContin profits have added the family to the Forbes: The $14 Billion Newcomer to Forbes 2015 List of Richest U.S. Families — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.11.176 (talk • contribs)

Oral bioavailability
Oral bioavailability of oxycodone is 50-59% mean; 30-87% range

Note that the 87% figure was from a single 6 person study funded by the drug company. Several independent studies have verified that the bioavailability is closer to 59%. I am Lorne, from Blue Light. Somewhere on that site are numerous references proving oxycodone BA% both oral and intranasal, is at or just over 50%. 87% is nonsense. Editing is difficult from my phone, someone please edit and fix this

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00228-012-1267-9.

Here is a single reference for a 59% figure, though it is in the elderly, there are others.

Please, we need to really fix this, and put the intranasal mean 48% figure. Come on, our info needs to be thoughoufh and correct

Thank You 2600:1005:B05C:57D1:0:53:4136:3201 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Media
Should this article include a reference to the Netflix series Painkiller? "... a fictionalized telling of real events, explores some of the origins and aftermath of the opioid crisis in America, highlighting the stories of perpetrators, victims, and truth-seekers whose lives are forever altered by the invention of OxyContin. Painkiller, premieres August 10." Phyllostachys (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 * What this article should include is the CDC graph showing deaths by various opioids that shows the opioid death crisis only started because of the Obama Administration's policy change regarding OxyContin in September 2013 and the subsequent DEA crackdown on the pill mills in 2014. But that will never happen. It's much easier to blame Purdue for everything.
 * I can't believe how well this ridiculous propaganda campaign, that this is all Purdue being uniquely evil, and that Oxycontin is a uniquely danger, has worked over the last 5 years.
 * As is said in this article: "Reformulated OxyContin is causing some recreational users to change to heroin, which is cheaper and easier to obtain". The government's own researchers knew the disaster the oxy crackdown would cause but they were ignored.
 * With me quoting that line here, it's probably going to be purged from the website, just like the study it links to got purged from the internet. Wonder why that may be.
 * The opioid death crisis is completely of the US Government's making and judging by all these ridiculous documentaries, they'll probably get away with it forever.
 * https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/data/analysis-resources.html
 * 2010: Forced "Abuse Resistant" variant of Oxy rolled out. Heroin Epidemic.
 * 2013/2014: Crackdown on the pill mills. Fentanyl Epidemic. TheJesterKing (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the matter is an odd one - I have heard all of the arguments - it needs a prescriber - and Physicians were part of the issue - surely. aggressive marketing and actively prescribing - are two separate issues - the article really in my mind is about the compound - it is still prescribed very often - much more thoughtfully, and in a more regulated manner - but it is a super common med. Oddly heroin has been used medically in the UK for decades - they just call it diamorphine - I guess it sounds better --  Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is recommendations like the one I responded to wanting to put in references to recent shows/documentaries that completely ignore what caused the opioid crisis to begin with.
 * On that CDC resources page, scroll down and look at the graph that shows the 3 "waves" of overdose deaths. Wave 2 is in 2010. Notice that before that heroin deaths were flat. In 2010 the government forced Purdue to reformulate Oxy to make it harder to "abuse".
 * Here's the National Bureau of Economic Research on how that caused a heroin epidemic, there are many studies like this one from 2018, but the government was warned before the forced reformulation the heroin death surge would happen: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24475/w24475.pdf
 * I knew people who worked with pain doctors back then and even with the reformulation, at least anecdotally, doctors between the years 2010 and 2013 started pushing fentanyl over oxy even though fentanyl has a vastly higher risk of overdose because of the microgram scale LD/50 and generally horrific side effects. Those people became addicted to fentanyl, not Oxy.
 * Recreational use of fentanyl was basically unheard of until late 2013. Look at the CDC graph on the 3rd wave. What does that line up with? The Obama admin's policy change regarding oxy and the first pain doctor visits from the DEA.
 * A large section of this article is devoted to the supposition that over prescription of Oxycodone is responsible for the opioid nightmare we're living in. It isn't, and I'm asserting this as fact. The opioid crisis was manufactured by the Obama administration by 2 decision against oxy, one in 2010 and the other in 2013. I'll leave you to decide whether this was incompetence or something darker. I'm sick of this absurd narrative around Purdue because it buries the deadliest policy decision in American history. Messing with the oxy formulation and then cracking down on pain doctors has killed more Americans than the Civil War and no one has noticed the government's role. TheJesterKing (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Being blunt - it is not something I debate - in any forum. There is no one single cause - I do think clinicians get a bit of a pass by the media.
 * This is just part of an article - oxycodone is still prescribed - a lot - even now - it is very useful. Now docs are audited, monitored - but, they are not going to see a patient in pain - morphine sulfate, oxycodone, hydrocodone, buprenorphine, Vicodin - fentanyl patches - all very commonly prescribed. BeingObjective (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What I'm laying out here is, on all of Wikipedia, only mentioned in one single sentence in this article, hence why I came in here to discuss it. I don't think clinicians get a pass at all in the media, what I'm saying is the government getting a pass in the media.
 * Look at the CDC's own graph. Over prescribing got people Addicted to opioids, but they weren't dying at a rate of 120,000 per year. Also, for those who took their oxy-related pills recreationally, as in "abused" them (whatever that means), the ones mixed with acetaminophen cause problems when mixed with alcohol, which, when people take other recreational drugs, they're usually also drinking.
 * "Now docs are audited, monitored". They are, by the DEA, which violates the DEA's charter. The DEA has no more business even interacting with doctors than the CIA would have doing spycraft inside the borders of the United States.
 * Why I'm laying all this out is to see what the community might think if I countered the singular focus on over-prescription and Purdue causing the opioid crisis, and I used actual peer reviewed studies, whether my edits would be immediately nuked.
 * From what I've gathered, any edit I make on that section of this article would get deleted, so I won't waste my time, but at least this talk page can archive legitimate disagreements with the opioid crisis part of the article. TheJesterKing (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Oxycodone


text:
Talk:Raymond B. Stewart Middle School

from VfD:

 * Non-notable school submitted for deletion by a non-notable alumnus. Gamaliel 05:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-notable. Delete.  RickK 06:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * D Here we go again ... Chris 07:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I didn't see anything notable there. Average Earthman 09:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. But at least the submitter did try to provide some facts specific to the school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Regardless of how well the article may be written. --Improv 20:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not really close to being well writen compared to other non-notable schools anyway. This does not set a precedent, they should be case-by-case. Cool Hand Luke  06:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thought there might be something worth expanding on the race relations history, but looking at the links on the article this issue to the whole district rather than this school. School on its own seems non-notable. MarkS 20:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The school was very big in the news here. People are still protesting the bussing decision (which was recently reversed), and there was a federal lawsuit over it.  Keep. anthony (see warning) 15:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to side with anthony this time. The desegregation controversy is notable.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sarge Baldy 02:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. looks notable RustyCale 11:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks can be deceiving. The whole bussing thing wasn't restricted to this one school but all schools in the area, hence it doesn't gain notability from it. Chris 15:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's quite misleading. Only two schools were closed due to the original decision.  In any case, VfD is not the place to argue over a title change. anthony (see warning) 16:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. And move to Blake Junior High School. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:18, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Looking at the votes here, and at Rhosnesni High School below, given that both articles are otherwise of equal value (both fairly normal, except for one local controversy which might have given national attention), the final action for both should be the same. Either keep both, or move both to a page about the controversy, in this case, Tampa bussing controversy.  PS - someone needs to clarify the use of "unitary" here.  Chris 02:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Please clarify
Someone needs to explain what "unitary" means in this context. I can't figure it out from the links here, nor my own understanding of the word "unitary". Chris 03:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VFD
On 23 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. See Votes for deletion/Blake Junior High School for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Raymond B. Stewart Middle School


text:
Talk:Peter F. Hamilton

Fawning
This article is a little fawning. I might do some NPOV modification. Don't get me wrong, Hamilton is great, but he's not perfect.Psychobabble

 * Please go ahead and be bold :). Thue | talk 07:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, done somewhat. Just as an aside, I see Hamilton as a mass-market Ian Banks. They're both british sci-fi writers, both describe detailed futuristic civilisations but stylistically they couldn't be more different. Banks is almost avant garde in a lot of his writing and rarely is he not obtuse (Use of Weapons had two stories, one running forward and one backward for goodness sake!). Hamilton is absolutely straightforward and they're the sort of books which you get hooked into straight away. Banks is style, Hamilton is plot :) Psychobabble

 * Hi, I did a little more NPOV because I thought it was still a bit too much like publicity copy. Also I formalised the bibliography. Martin 28/10/04
 * Yeah, nice work, looks good. You were more bold than I!Psychobabble

size
"After this he wrote a massive space opera, called the The Night's Dawn Trilogy." - Massive is right. This trilogy is huge! About 1500 pages each x 3 = 4500 pages!!!
 * But worth every page. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.36.186 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Peter F Hamilton
Please see Template talk:Peter F Hamilton for possible changes to the template listing Hamilton's production. As of now it only include books/universa that have corresponing articles on Wikipedia. Scoo 13:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Education
Any word on where he studied and in what field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.209.8 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

reformat
I did a major reformat of the article. This way it should be much easier to read and edit, and it conforms much better to wikipedia standards. I realize the article is still far from perfect but I think it will be easier now for other contributers to improve it. S Sepp 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
I am just wondering of there is a template info box template we might be able to use on the books page, to clean out ISBN, and date's on Peter's main page? --Amckern 02:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While there are Template:Author and Template:Infobox Writer, none would help (apart from making general good use on the page for at-a-glance info). Perhaps a custom table would do, I think a little overlap (as a lenghty book section in the article) isn't that bad, though it could probably be re-arranged a bit. Scoo 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth saga criticism
I've removed the following from the article:
 * It is considered by some as the worst of all of his books due to having a thin plot and being over-sexed, much like the later works by Robert A. Heinlein.

It may well be true (from my reading it is....) but my thoughts aren't a reliable, verifiable source. If someone can find one, then this can go back in. Inner Earth 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I meant to add that it had been fact tagged (undated) since October 2006 - long enough for it to be waiting whilst unverified. Inner Earth 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Void Series
I've edited Temporal Void's release date to indicate UK-only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhamad (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the release date for The Evolutionary Void as mentioned on his webpage on Nov 27th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.30.41.220 (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the Void series is done now. Why is it listed as finishing in 2011? I don't think there's going to be a fourth book, is there? Drhamad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Britain's biggest-selling science fiction author
Is he really? Does anyone know how many books Iain Banks has sold worldwide? I couldn't find anything on his agent's or publishers' web sites. DES (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures are available for Hamilton but not for Banks, and Orbit have not challenged Macmillan's claim for Hamilton, suggesting that Banks' SF novels have not sold as many copies (if combined with his mainstream fiction, Banks may have indeed sold more, but the publishers treating Banks and M. Banks as two separate entities makes this difficult to do). It does also make more sense. Whilst Banks has been publishing SF for longer, Hamilton is more prolific and has published many more SF books. He has also had a lot of critical acclaim in the last few years, whilst Banks' later books have had mixed reviews. Finally, Hamilton has taken off very well in the United States, whilst Banks has never been big over there.--Werthead (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Political Criticism
"The books (Greg Mandal Trilogy), and Hamilton himself, took some amount of criticism in British science fiction literary circles for his less than positive portrayal of an authoritarian left-wing British government." Can anyone supply any references to support that statement ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.35.211 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a cite request for that one - might well be true, but needs a link. Bromley86 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article so small?
This page is so small on content. The primary content - The bibliography - is on another page. Why is this? This kind of thing doesn't appear to be on any other author's page that I can see. Can we combine them? Stricho (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with above. Why all relevant material is now on another page (on Peter F. Hamilton bibliography)? Vald (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peter F. Hamilton


text:
Serology

Serology is the scientific study of serum and other body fluids. In practice, the term usually refers to the diagnostic identification of antibodies in the serum. Such antibodies are typically formed in response to an infection (against a given microorganism), against other foreign proteins (in response, for example, to a mismatched blood transfusion), or to one's own proteins (in instances of autoimmune disease). In either case, the procedure is simple.

Serological tests
Serological tests are diagnostic methods that are used to identify antibodies and antigens in a patient's sample. Serological tests may be performed to diagnose infections and autoimmune illnesses, to check if a person has immunity to certain diseases, and in many other situations, such as determining an individual's blood type. Serological tests may also be used in forensic serology to investigate crime scene evidence. Several methods can be used to detect antibodies and antigens, including ELISA, agglutination, precipitation, complement-fixation, and fluorescent antibodies and more recently chemiluminescence.

Microbiology
In microbiology, serologic tests are used to determine if a person has antibodies against a specific pathogen, or to detect antigens associated with a pathogen in a person's sample. Serologic tests are especially useful for organisms that are difficult to culture by routine laboratory methods, like Treponema pallidum (the causative agent of syphilis), or viruses.

The presence of antibodies against a pathogen in a person's blood indicates that they have been exposed to that pathogen. Most serologic tests measure one of two types of antibodies: immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG). IgM is produced in high quantities shortly after a person is exposed to the pathogen, and production declines quickly thereafter. IgG is also produced on the first exposure, but not as quickly as IgM. On subsequent exposures, the antibodies produced are primarily IgG, and they remain in circulation for a prolonged period of time.

This affects the interpretation of serology results: a positive result for IgM suggests that a person is currently or recently infected, while a positive result for IgG and negative result for IgM suggests that the person may have been infected or immunized in the past. Antibody testing for infectious diseases is often done in two phases: during the initial illness (acute phase) and after recovery (convalescent phase). The amount of antibody in each specimen (antibody titer) is compared, and a significantly higher amount of IgG in the convalescent specimen suggests infection as opposed to previous exposure. False negative results for antibody testing can occur in people who are immunosuppressed, as they produce lower amounts of antibodies, and in people who receive antimicrobial drugs early in the course of the infection.

Transfusion medicine

Blood typing is typically performed using serologic methods. The antigens on a person's red blood cells, which determine their blood type, are identified using reagents that contain antibodies, called antisera. When the antibodies bind to red blood cells that express the corresponding antigen, they cause red blood cells to clump together (agglutinate), which can be identified visually. The person's blood group antibodies can also be identified by adding plasma to cells that express the corresponding antigen and observing the agglutination reactions.

Other serologic methods used in transfusion medicine include crossmatching and the direct and indirect antiglobulin tests. Crossmatching is performed before a blood transfusion to ensure that the donor blood is compatible. It involves adding the recipient's plasma to the donor blood cells and observing for agglutination reactions. The direct antiglobulin test is performed to detect if antibodies are bound to red blood cells inside the person's body, which is abnormal and can occur in conditions like autoimmune hemolytic anemia, hemolytic disease of the newborn and transfusion reactions. The indirect antiglobulin test is used to screen for antibodies that could cause transfusion reactions and identify certain blood group antigens.

Immunology
Serologic tests can help to diagnose autoimmune disorders by identifying abnormal antibodies directed against a person's own tissues (autoantibodies). All people have different immunology graphs.

Serological surveys
A 2016 research paper by Metcalf et al., amongst whom were Neil Ferguson and Jeremy Farrar, stated that serological surveys are often used by epidemiologists to determine the prevalence of a disease in a population. Such surveys are sometimes performed by random, anonymous sampling from samples taken for other medical tests or to assess the prevalence of antibodies of a specific organism or protective titre of antibodies in a population. Serological surveys are usually used to quantify the proportion of people or animals in a population positive for a specific antibody or the titre or concentrations of an antibody. These surveys are potentially the most direct and informative technique available to infer the dynamics of a population's susceptibility and level of immunity. The authors proposed a World Serology Bank (or serum bank) and foresaw "associated major methodological developments in serological testing, study design, and quantitative analysis, which could drive a step change in our understanding and optimum control of infectious diseases."

In a helpful reply entitled "Opportunities and challenges of a World Serum Bank", de Lusignan and Correa observed that the principal ethical and logistical challenges that need to be overcome are the methods of obtaining specimens, how informed consent is acquired in busy practices, and the filling in of gaps in patient sampling.

In another helpful reply on the World Serum Bank, the Australian researcher Karen Coates declared that: Improved serological surveillance would allow governments, aid agencies, and policy writers to direct public health resources to where they are needed most. A better understanding of infection dynamics with respect to the changing patterns of global weather should inform policy measures including where to concentrate vaccination efforts and insect control measures.

In April 2020, Justin Trudeau formed the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, whose mandate is to carry out a serological survey in a scheme hatched in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

title: Serology


text:
HAS-160

HAS-160 is a cryptographic hash function designed for use with the Korean KCDSA digital signature algorithm. It is derived from SHA-1, with assorted changes intended to increase its security. It produces a 160-bit output.

HAS-160 is used in the same way as SHA-1. First it divides input in blocks of 512 bits each and pads the final block. A digest function updates the intermediate hash value by processing the input blocks in turn.

The message digest algorithm consists of 80 rounds.

title: HAS-160


text:
User:Moosk

Math and science

title: User:Moosk


text:
Shūichi Ikeda

Shūichi Ikeda (池田 秀一) is a Japanese actor and narrator. Ikeda is married to Sakiko Tamagawa, although he was once married to Keiko Toda. He currently works for Tokyo Actor's Consumer's Cooperative Society. He is best known for his role as Char Aznable in multiple Gundam series, Scorpio Milo in Saint Seiya 1980s, Shuichi Akai from Detective Conan, and Red-Haired Shanks from One Piece. He is also the official Japanese dubbing roles for Jet Li. In 2023, Ikeda was a recipient of the Best Supporting Actor Award at the 17th Seiyu Awards.

Television animation

 * 1970s
 * Akaki Chi no Eleven (1970) (Shunji Hayase)
 * Invincible Steel Man Daitarn 3 (1978) (Commander Radikku)
 * Galaxy Express 999 (1979) (Nanmi)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam (1979) (Char Aznable, Oscar Dublin)
 * The Ultraman (1979) (Shimizu)
 * 1980s
 * Giant Gorg (1984) (Rod Balboa)
 * Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam (1985) (Quattro Bajeena/Char Aznable)
 * Machine Robo: Revenge of Cronos (1986) (Devil Rock Clay)
 * Saint Seiya (1986) (Scorpio Milo)
 * Zillion (1987) (Major Max Shīdo)
 * Bubblegum Crisis (1987) (Brian J Mason)
 * The Burning Wild Man (1988) (Gai Hidō)
 * Venus Wars (1989) (Kurtz)
 * 1990s
 * City Hunter '91 (1991) (Kuwata)
 * Tico of the Seven Seas (1994) (Scott Simpson)
 * Rurouni Kenshin (1996) (Hiko Seijūrō XIII)
 * Kindaichi Case Files (1997) (Yuuichi Yukimuro)
 * Arc the Lad (1999) (Shuu)
 * One Piece (1999) (Red-Haired Shanks, Dr. Ho)
 * 2000s
 * Detective Conan (2001) (Shuichi Akai)
 * Project ARMS (2001) (Jabberwock)
 * Gunslinger Girl (2003) (Fermi)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny (2004) (Gilbert Durandal)
 * Monster (2004) (Martin Resuto)
 * Sgt. Frog (2004) (Baio Nishizawa)
 * Superior Defender Gundam Force (2004) (Commander Sazabī)
 * Tenjho Tenge (2004) (Shin Natsume)
 * Naruto (2005) (Sazanami/Tokichi)
 * The Law of Ueki (2005) (Margarette)
 * Saiunkoku Monogatari (2006) (Shouka Kou, Narrator)
 * Utawarerumono (2006) (Dii)
 * My Bride Is a Mermaid (2007) (younger Masa during flashback / Akeno Shiranui Brother )
 * Rosario + Vampire (2008) (Kuyo)
 * Sands of Destruction (2008) (Yappi)
 * Golgo 13 (2008) (Mikhaïl)
 * 2010s
 * Magic Kaito (2010) (Kuroba Toichi)
 * C³ (2011) (Gabriel Sekaibashi)
 * Gintama (2011) (Dark Vader)
 * Hunter × Hunter (2011) (Kite)
 * The World is Still Beautiful (2014) (Vōdan)
 * Cardfight!! Vanguard (2016) (Ryuzu Myoujin)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn RE:0096 (2016) (Full Frontal)
 * 2020s
 * Gibiate (2020) (Dr. Yoshinaga)
 * Hortensia Saga (2021) (Didier Vialdo)
 * Birdie Wing: Golf Girls' Story (2022) (Leo Millafoden)
 * Helck (2023) (Narrator)

OVAs

 * Dallos (1983) (Alex)
 * Dream Hunter Rem (1985) (Kaimaru Kidō)
 * Leda: The Fantastic Adventure of Yohko (1985) (Zell)
 * Prefectural Earth Defense Force (1986) (Chilthonian)
 * Bubblegum Crisis (1987) (Brian J. Mason)
 * Baoh (1989) (Dordo)
 * Legend of the Galactic Heroes (1989) (Ulrich Kessler)
 * Locke the Superman (1989) (Lord Leon)
 * Record of Lodoss War (1990) (Lord Cashew)
 * The Heroic Legend of Arslan (1993) (Hilmes)
 * Future GPX Cyber Formula Cyber Formula SAGA (1996) (Kyōshirō Nagumo)
 * Future GPX Cyber Formula Cyber Formula SIN (1998) (Kyōshirō Nagumo)
 * Rurouni Kenshin: Tsuioku-hen (1999) (Hiko Seijūrō XIII)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn (2010) (Full Frontal)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam: The Origin (2015) (Char Aznable)

ONAs

 * Thermae Romae Novae (2022) (Utagawa Kuniyoshi)

Theatrical animation

 * Phoenix 2772 (1980) (Rock)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam (1981) (Char Aznable)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam: Soldiers of Sorrow (1981) (Char Aznable)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam: Encounters in Space (1982) (Char Aznable)
 * Unico in the Island of Magic (1983) (Torubi)
 * Project A-ko (1986) (Captain)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack (1988) (Char Aznable)
 * The Heroic Legend of Arslan (1991) (Hilmes)
 * Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam: A New Translation - Heirs to the Stars (2005) (Quattro Bajeena/Char Aznable)
 * Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam: A New Translation II - Lovers (2005) (Quattro Bajeena/Char Aznable)
 * Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam: A New Translation III - Love is the Pulse of the Stars (2006) (Quattro Bajeena/Char Aznable)
 * Detective Conan: Dimensional Sniper (2014) (Shuichi Akai)
 * GAMBA (2015) (Gakusha)
 * Detective Conan: The Darkest Nightmare (2016) (Shuichi Akai)
 * Gantz: O (2016) (Yoshikazu Suzuki)
 * Detective Conan: The Scarlet Bullet (2021) (Shuichi Akai)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam: Cucuruz Doan's Island (2022) (Char Aznable)
 * One Piece Film: Red (2022) (Red-Haired Shanks)
 * Detective Conan: Black Iron Submarine (2023) (Shuichi Akai)

Video games

 * Angelique series (????) (Guardian of Green Catis)
 * Another Century's Episode 2 (????) (Char Aznable)
 * Deus Ex: Human Revolution (????, Japanese version) (David Sarif)
 * Granblue Fantasy (2014) (The Blue Knight, Walfrid)
 * Gungrave Overdose (????) (Garino Creale Corsione)
 * Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn (2013) (Lahabrea)
 * Future GPX Cyber Formula: Road to the Infinity (????) (Kyoshiro Nagumo)
 * Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days (????) (Marluxia)
 * Kingdom Hearts: Re:Chain of Memories (????) (Marluxia)
 * Makai Kingdom: Chronicles Of The Sacred Tome (????) (Seedle)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam: Gundam vs. Gundam (????) (Char Aznable)
 * Persona 5 (Masayoshi Shidou)
 * Record of Lodoss War 2: (????) (Lord Cashew (カシュー王))
 * SD Gundam G Generation World (????) (Char Aznable), (Quattro Bajeena), (Gilbert Durandal), (Full Frontal)
 * Sengoku Basara 4 (2014) (Ashikaga Yoshiteru)
 * Sengoku Basara 4: Sumeragi (2015) (Ashikaga Yoshiteru)
 * Shadow Hearts: Covenant (????) (Blanca)
 * Shapeshifter: Makai Eiyuuden (????) (Lycos)
 * Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse (2016) (Mysterious Demon)
 * Super Robot Wars series (????-??) (Char Aznable, Quattro Bajeena, Full Frontal)
 * The Sniper (Harry C. Spencer)
 * Tech Romancer (????) (Shadow Red)
 * Tengai Makyō II: Manjimaru (????) (Yomi, Isohana Houshi, Marubeni)
 * Tengai Makyō III: Namida (????) (Nigi)
 * Tengai Makyō: Karakuri Kakutoden (????) (Yomi)
 * Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria (????) (Odin)
 * Valkyrie Profile (????) (Odin, Barbarossa)
 * Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (2017) (Aegaeon)
 * Monochrome Mobius: Rights and Wrongs Forgotten (2022) (Mayacowl)
 * Arknights (2023) (Friston-3)

Drama CD

 * Ai no Kusabi series 1 (????) (Raoul)
 * Dragon Quest IV CD theater (????) (Psaro)

Tokusatsu

 * Ninpū Sentai Hurricanger (2002) (Seven Spear Sanderu (ep. 39 - 51))
 * Juuken Sentai Gekiranger (2007) (Bat Li (ep. 13 - 49))
 * Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger (2011) (Sanderu Jr. (ep. 25))

Dubbing roles

 * Jet Li
 * Once Upon a Time in China series (Wong Fei-hung)
 * Swordsman II (Linghu Chong)
 * Fong Sai-yuk (VHS edition) (Fong Sai-yuk)
 * Kung Fu Cult Master (VHS edition) (Chang Mo-Gei)
 * Tai Chi Master (VHS edition) (Zhang Junbao)
 * The Bodyguard from Beijing (Allan Hui Ching-yeung)
 * Fist of Legend (Chen Zhen)
 * High Risk (Kit Li)
 * Black Mask (Tsui Chik / Black Mask)
 * Dr. Wai in "The Scripture with No Words" (Chow Si-Kit / Dr. Wai)
 * Hitman (Fu)
 * Lethal Weapon 4 (2003 TV Asashi edition) (Wah Sing Ku)
 * Fearless (Huo Yuanjia)
 * War (Rogue)
 * The Forbidden Kingdom (Sun Wukong)
 * The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2010 Fuji TV edition) (Qin Shi Huang)
 * The Expendables (Yin Yang)
 * Flying Swords of Dragon Gate (Zhou Huai'an)
 * The Sorcerer and the White Snake (Abott Fahai)
 * The Expendables 2 (Yin Yang)
 * Badges of Fury (Huang Fei Hong)
 * The Expendables 3 (Yin Yang)
 * Charlie Sheen
 * Platoon (1989 TV Asashi edition) (Chris Taylor)
 * The Wraith (TBS edition) (Jake Kesey / The Wraith)
 * Major League (Ricky Vaughn)
 * The Rookie (David Ackerman)
 * Hot Shots! (TBS edition) (LT Sean "Topper" Harley)
 * Hot Shots! Part Deux (TBS Edition) (LT Sean "Topper" Harley)
 * The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (Liu Yude / Monk San Te (Gordon Liu))
 * 48 Hrs. (1985 NTV edition) (Luther Kelly (David Patrick Kelly))
 * Bunraku (Killer No. 2 (Kevin McKidd))
 * Casablanca (New Era Movies edition) (Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart))
 * The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Mr. Fox (Rupert Everett))
 * Copycat (1998 TV Tokyo edition) (Inspector Nicoletti (Will Patton))
 * Crash (James Ballard (James Spader))
 * The Crow (Eric Draven (Brandon Lee))
 * Cyborg (VHS edition) (Gibson Rickenbacker (Jean-Claude Van Damme))
 * Das Boot (Leutnant Werner (Herbert Grönemeyer))
 * Die Another Day (2006 TV Asashi edition) (Zao (Rick Yune))
 * Disciples of the 36th Chamber (San Te (Gordon Liu))
 * Dolittle (Barry (Ralph Fiennes))
 * Double Team (Stavros (Mickey Rourke))
 * Dune: Part Two (Shaddam IV (Christopher Walken))
 * ER (Sean O'Brien (Bradley Whitford))
 * Fantasy Mission Force (Captain Don Wen (Jimmy Wang Yu))
 * The Fast and the Furious (2005 TV Asashi edition) (Johnny Tran (Rick Yune))
 * Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp))
 * House of Gucci (Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons))
 * Iron Man (2011 TV Asahi edition) (Tony Stark / Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.))
 * Iron Man 2 (2012 TV Asahi edition) (Tony Stark / Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.))
 * Killer Meteors (Killer Weapon (Jimmy Wang Yu))
 * King Kong Lives (1988 TV Asashi edition) (Hank Mitchell (Brian Kerwin))
 * Kiss the Girls (Det. Nick Ruskin (Cary Elwes))
 * Ladder 49 (Mike Kennedy (John Travolta))
 * Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2005 TV Asahi edition) (Manfred Powell (Iain Glen))
 * Love Story (1988 TV Tokyo edition) (Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O'Neal))
 * The Man from Hong Kong (Inspector Fang Sing Leng (Jimmy Wang Yu))
 * Mars (Ed Grann (Olivier Martinez))
 * The Name of the Rose (William of Baskerville (John Turturro))
 * Pacific Rim (Herc Hansen (Max Martini))
 * Project A Part II (Inspector Chun (David Lam))
 * Red Dawn (Jed Eckert (Patrick Swayze))
 * Roots (1977) (Kunta Kinte (LeVar Burton))
 * Roots (2016) (Omoro Kinte (Babs Olusanmokun))
 * Shiri (Yu Jong-won (Han Suk-kyu))
 * Streets of Fire (Tom Cody (Michael Paré))
 * The Terminator (1992 VHS edition) (Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn))
 * Tower of Death (Lee Chen-kwok (Kim Tai-chung))
 * Village of the Damned (Dr. Alan Chaffee (Christopher Reeve))
 * Village of the Damned (1998 TV Asahi edition) (Reverend George (Mark Hamill))
 * Watchmen (Adrian Veidt (Jeremy Irons))
 * White Collar (Peter Burke (Tim DeKay))
 * Year of the Dragon (Joey Tai (John Lone))

Films

 * Where Spring Comes Late (1970) (Takashi Kazami)
 * Gokumontō (1977) (Ryōtaku)

Television dramas

 * Shonen Tanteidan (1960–63) (Ken)
 * Jirō Monogatari (1964) (Jirō)
 * Ōoka Echizen (1971, 75, 82) (Kazuma, Kisuke, Denjirō)
 * Tōyama no Kin-san Torimono Chō (1973) (Eiji)
 * Taiyō ni Hoero! (1974, 77) (Moriyama, Miyashita)
 * G-Men '75 (1976, 78, 82) (Hanai, Sawaki, Murata)
 * Kashin (1977) (Terashima Chuzaburo)
 * Monkey (1978)
 * Ultraman Tiga (1996) (Shigeki Asamiya)
 * Daimajin Kanon (2010) (Dean)
 * Hana Moyu (2015) (Narrator)

title: Shūichi Ikeda


text:
Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH is a 1971 children's science fiction/fantasy book by Robert C. O'Brien, with illustrations by Zena Bernstein. The novel was published by the Los Angeles publishing house Atheneum Books.

This book was the winner of numerous awards including the 1972 Newbery Medal. Ten years following its publication, the story was adapted for film as The Secret of NIMH (1982).

The novel centers around a colony of escaped lab rats—the rats of NIMH—who live in a technologically sophisticated and literate society mimicking that of humans. They come to the aid of Mrs. Frisby, a widowed field mouse who seeks to protect her children and home from destruction by a farmer's plow.

The rats of NIMH were inspired by the research of John B. Calhoun on mouse and rat population dynamics at the National Institute of Mental Health from the 1940s to the 1960s.

After O'Brien's death in 1973, his daughter Jane Leslie Conly wrote two sequels to Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH.

Plot summary
Mrs. Frisby, a recently widowed mouse, lives with her four children in a cinder block, in a field belonging to a farmer named Mr. Fitzgibbon. Her son Timothy falls ill with pneumonia just as the farmer begins planning for spring plowing, which will destroy their home. Normally, the family would move to their summer home to avoid being uprooted, but Timothy is too ill to move. An older mouse named Mr. Ages, who was a friend of Mrs. Frisby's late husband Jonathan, gives her some medicine for Timothy. On her way home, she saves the life of a young crow named Jeremy from the farmer's cat, Dragon. In return, Jeremy flies Mrs. Frisby to an owl's tree so that she can ask for help moving her family. When the owl finds out that Mrs. Frisby is the widow of his old friend Jonathan, he suggests that she seek help from the rats who live in a rosebush on the farm.

Frisby discovers that the rats have a literate and mechanized society. They have technology such as elevators, have tapped the electricity grid to provide lighting and heating, and have acquired other human skills, such as storing food for the winter. Their leader, Nicodemus, tells Frisby of the rats' capture by scientists working for a laboratory located at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the experiments that were performed on the rats, which increased the rats' intelligence to the point of being able to read, write and operate complicated machines, as well as enhancing their longevity and strength. Their increased intelligence and strength allowed them to escape from NIMH and migrate to their present location on the farm. Jonathan and Ages were the only two survivors of a group of eight mice who had been part of the experiments at NIMH and made the rats' escape possible.

Out of respect for Jonathan, the rats agree to move Frisby's house to a location safe from the plow. Nicodemus also tells Frisby that the rats have recently decided to abandon their lifestyle of dependence on humans, which some rats regard as theft. Instead, the rats aim to live independently. A group of rats, led by one named Jenner, rejected this plan and left the nest at some point before Frisby's arrival.

In order for the rats to move the Frisby home, the cat Dragon must be drugged, but the rats are too big to be able to do so. Mrs. Frisby volunteers to go, even though she learns that Jonathan was killed by Dragon while attempting to drug him. She is caught by the farmer's son, Billy, who puts her in a birdcage. While captured, Frisby overhears the farmer and his family discussing an incident at a nearby hardware store in which a group of rats was electrocuted after seemingly attempting to steal a small motor. This has attracted the attention of a group of men who have offered to exterminate the rats on the farmer's land free of charge. At night, the rat Justin comes to save Frisby and manages to get her out of the cage. The rats manage to move the Frisby house out of the way of the plow using a pulley and scaffolding system.

The successful house move allows the mouse family to remain so that Timothy has time to recover before moving to their summer home. Mrs. Frisby warns the rats of what she learned while captured; they assume that the rats at the hardware store were Jenner's group, and that the group of men were from NIMH and are looking for them specifically. To fool the exterminators, the rats get rid of all their human-like technology and make their tunnels under the rosebush look like a normal rats' nest. As the others move, ten rats stay behind so the exterminators will not think the rat hole has been abandoned. When the exterminators fill the rat hole with poisonous gas, eight of the ten rats manage to escape, while the remaining two die in the hole. Once Timothy recovers, Frisby and her family move to their summer home.

Critical response
Since its release, Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH has received widespread praise from scholars, critics of children's literature, and children themselves. In 1985, Alethea K Helbig called Mrs. Frisby "a combination of science fiction and animal fantasy" that described "fantastic situations with scientific accuracy". Scholar Paula T. Connolly noted the book for Conly's "gradations of moral understanding and culpability" while dealing with "such problematic issues as the roles of science and technology, identity, idealism, family life, forms of community and means of survival".

In a paper titled "The Critical Reader in Children's Metafiction", literary scholar Joe Sanders wrote that the book's emphasis on the rats' abilities to read mirrors the "growing reading abilities of the novel's own target audience". Sanders argues that the book portrays "the act of reading" as "clearly liberatory". Reading allows the rats to create a thriving human-like society once escaping from NIMH. Furthermore, reading serves as a gateway for the rats to discover that humans dislike them because they steal. Sanders added that "scientific and philosophical treatises help the rats understand what their role is in the world and that if they are to be anything more than thieves, they must become a self-sustaining community". In essence, Sanders finds that O'Brien promotes reading as an empowering tool which is an important lesson that children learn through reading this book.

In a retrospective essay about the Newbery Medal-winning books from 1966 to 1975, children's author John Rowe Townsend wrote: "It seems to me that the fact that all the animals talk and behave intelligently from the beginning of the story detracts from the spectacular development of the laboratory rats... Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH is a pleasing book, but I find it mildly frustrating; it might have been something more than it is".

In 2012 it was ranked number 33 on a list of the top 100 children's novels published by School Library Journal.

Awards
Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH won numerous awards including the Lewis Carroll Shelf Award, Newbery Medal, and the runner-up National Book Award in 1972; the Mark Twain Award in 1973; the Pacific Northwest Library Association Young Readers' Choice Award and the William Allan White Children's Book Award in 1974.

Impact on American views of scientific technology
In a 2019 essay, American studies scholar Arahshiel Rose Silver wrote that Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH "reflect the many scientific and technological anxieties present in 1960s American culture". During this period, scientific advancements–especially in the field of genetics–increased fears about the pervasiveness of technology in everyday life. A culture of fear began to grow surrounding unethical medical and scientific practices, which are heavily reflected in the book. Silver argued that Conly's book lays out an example of technological development ending poorly, giving both children reading the book and their parents a lot to think about.

Related works
After the death of O'Brien, his daughter, Jane Leslie Conly, wrote two other novels based on the rats of NIMH. Racso and the Rats of NIMH (1986) tells the story of a city rat who runs away to join the new colony, befriending Timothy, while saving the colony from a flood along the way. In R-T, Margaret, and the Rats of NIMH (1990), the rats rescue two lost human children who in turn help to save the colony before winter. Constance Vidor commented that "Conly's books continue her father's emphasis on the theme of social responsibility while weaving in new characters with more personal problems".

1982 version
In 1982, the animated film The Secret of NIMH was released, directed by Don Bluth; it was his first feature film outside of Walt Disney Animation Studios. The film adds a mystical element completely absent from the novel, with Nicodemus portrayed as a wise, bearded old wizard with magic powers and an enchanted amulet, rather than an equal of the other rats. The character of Jenner is made a villain who is still present with the rats, rather than having left them before the story begins. The crow Jeremy has much greater prominence as comic relief in the film than he has in the book. Additionally, the Frisby family name was changed to "Brisby" to avoid trademark infringement with the Frisbee.

Live-action/animated reboot
In 2009, Paramount Pictures set Neil Burger to write the script and Cary Granat to produce the film based on the book. Nothing has materialised since and the rights to the book lapsed.

In 2015, MGM, which had released the 1982 film, acquired the rights to the book to adapt it into a live-action/animated film. Michael Berg was set to adapt it, while Daniel Bobker and Ehren Kruger were attached to produce.

The Russo brothers were set as executive producers of the remake as of April 2019.

Television series
A television series based on the books was in development at Fox as an event series in September 2021.

title: Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH


text:
User:Wendell

Sometime in 2004, I found Wikipedia from the Sensei's Library, a wiki about the Game of Go. I browsed for awhile, did a few anomyous edits. Then I noticed that the poorly written THAAD article had some strange tag called

 * Votes for Deletion
 * Hmmmm, that sounds strange....
 * better find out more....
 * yikes, they need someone to improve the article or else.....
 * The article was saved....
 * that day, I registered....
 * and became a wiki addict

Key Votes on Articles

 * Zillions of Games      Keep VfD on 3 July 2005

Articles Started or Expanded

 * Missile Defense
 * Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
 * Missile defense
 * Missile Defense Agency
 * Ground-Based Missile Defense
 * World War II
 * German Sixth SS Panzer Army
 * German Heavy Panzer Detachment

 * Federal Protected Areas in Alabama
 * Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge
 * Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge
 * Sipsey Wilderness
 * Cheaha Wilderness
 * Dugger Mountain Wilderness
 * William B. Bankhead National Forest
 * Talladega National Forest
 * Conecuh National Forest
 * Tuskegee National Forest

 * Trails in Alabama
 * Chief Ladiga Trail
 * Pinhoti National Recreation Trail

 * Alabama related
 * Geography of Alabama
 * Alabama Shakespeare Festival
 * Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail
 * Tennessee Valley

 * Alabama State Parks
 * Joe Wheeler State Park
 * Lake Guntersville State Park
 * Buck's Pocket State Park
 * Cathedral Caverns State Park
 * DeSoto State Park

 * North Alabama related
 * Dams and Reservoirs of the Tennessee River
 * Little River Canyon National Preserve
 * Lake Guntersville & Guntersville Dam
 * Wheeler Lake & Wheeler Dam

 * Huntsville, Alabama related
 * Monte Sano State Park
 * Neutral Buoyancy Space Simulator

Templates Started or Expanded

 * Template:DnDmodule
 * Template:SimUniverse
 * Template:Planckunits
 * Template:WWIIWesternDesertCampaign  ulgy

Useful Wiki Items I wish I helped create or refine

 * Template:North Alabama Landmarks
 * Huntsville-Madison County Botanical Garden

Categories I have Started or Expanded

 * Category:Alabama state parks
 * Category:Missile defence

Favorite Silly Articles

 * List of female porn stars by decade
 * Gray Waste DnD
 * Sword of Kas
 * Queen of the Demonweb Pits
 * Ravenloft (D&D module)
 * Go-Go boots
 * Neuschwanstein
 * Moonlighting (TV series)
 * San Francisco burrito

Favorite Silly Movies

 * Running Scared (film)
 * Big Trouble in Little China
 * Romancing the Stone
 * Demolition Man
 * Year of the Dragon (film)

Fluff

 * Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented

Handy stuff

 * Guide to table "pipe" syntax
 * Extended image syntax
 * Sandbox
 * Actor IMDb template:
 * Film IMDb template:

Temp

 * /WWII references
 * /Project Stats
 * /Campaignbox Analysis 25 Jan
 * /Atlanta Fantasy Fair

WikiProject_Military_history/Campaignboxes

title: User:Wendell


text:
Talk:James Landrum White

Untitled
I've added material from the article by Gavin James Campbell, so as to emphasize the role of J. L. White in the tumult surrounding Sacred Harp singing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I hope this doesn't overdramatize these events, or neglect other aspects of J. L. White's life. Comments, revisions, etc., quite welcome. Opus33 06:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the additions are good. Of course, it would be good to discover more things about J. L.'s musical life to add to the article. I appreciate your concern about POV in Sacred Harp. I think some recent work has helped correct some inadverent POV that crept into early Sacred Harp research. I don't think it was deliberate - kind of like when everyone believed the earth was flat, a writer would write based on that assumption with no thought of researching it further. For example, McKenzie actually did research that shows Cooper's altos seem to more consistently fit the old Harp harmonic patterns than James', while everyone had previously assumed the opposite. Another area is that of sort of dismissing Cooper and the southeast Alabama singers as out on the fringes of "real" Sacred Harp, making his revision seem more "illegitimate". This is in fact just based on an assumption, because no one has really researched Sacred Harp's history in that area - when did it arrive, by whom, etc. The idea that the James book was the largest Sacred Harp ever keeps getting repeated to this date, even by people who have discovered that it only had 580 songs instead of the claimed something over 600 (quite a few songs were listed twice in the index; e.g. Red Sea Anthem, The Red Sea Anthem). It definitely was physically the largest book though. One must be careful also because when some people say "The Sacred Harp", they only mean the James/Denson lineage (hopefully not in academia, though).

I will be making one addition about J. L.'s 1909 "Fifth Edition". Based on Cobb, Campbell, and discussion on our fasola listserve (including the owner of the 1909 book Cobb researched), J. L. White's 1909 edition experienced more revision and was released with many changes in 1910, but being completely ditched for the "Fourth Edition with Supplement in 1911". Well, I'll stop rambling and post. - Rlvaughn 02:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I made a few more changes after I got into it, including looking to consistently note that J. L. reprinted the 1870 edition (same as 1869 except copyrighted by B. F. & D. P. White). Don't know if I found them all. I have a theory that the 1869 (White & SMC) & 1870 (White & White) editions may play into how Cooper & James could release editions of the Sacred Harp, especially since the copyright had been renewed as late as 1897 (at least for the 1870 book). I haven't checked to see how long it took a copyright to run out in those days, but for now am thinking it would have lasted till J. L. revised in 1909. Also noted the percentage of 3-part harmonies in the White book, and that White did revise it slightly once during his lifetime. I have what I assume is the original and one that is a revision, but I haven't had time to make a detailed comparison. One obvious change is p. 59 (Holy Manna) from the original to a reharmonized version. - Rlvaughn 03:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much, RLV. I agree that scholarly work on Sacred Harp ought to be very careful about keeping a balance between Denson and Cooper traditions.  In this connection, your remarks offer a sobering perspective on secondary sources--you can have good intentions about NPOV, but be defeated if your information is incomplete.

 * The existence of a 1910 Fifth Edition, and the questions you raise about copyright, are both very interesting.   Opus33 00:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Landrum
Is his namesake John Gill Landrum? Cake (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:James Landrum White