text:
Rageh Omaar

Rageh Omaar (Raage Oomaar; راجح اومار; born 19 July 1967) is a Somali-born British journalist and writer. He was a BBC world affairs correspondent, where he made his name reporting from Iraq. In September 2006, he moved to a new post at Al Jazeera English, where he presented the nightly weekday documentary series Witness until January 2010. The Rageh Omaar Report, first aired in February 2010, is a one-hour, monthly investigative documentary in which he reports on international current affairs stories. From January 2013, he became a special correspondent and presenter for ITV News, reporting on a broad range of news stories, as well as producing special in-depth reports from around the UK and further afield. A year after his appointment, Omaar was promoted to international affairs editor for ITV News. Since October 2015, alongside his duties as international affairs editor, he has been a deputy newscaster of ITV News at Ten. Since September 2017, Omaar has occasionally presented the ITV Lunchtime News including the ITV News London Lunchtime Bulletin and the ITV Evening News.

Early life
Omaar was born in 1967 in Mogadishu, Somali Republic, to Abdullahi and Sahra Omaar. His father was an accountant who became a businessman, a representative of Massey Ferguson tractors, founder of the country's first independent newspaper, and was responsible for introducing Coca-Cola to Somalia. A Muslim, his family is originally from Hargeisa.

Omaar moved to the United Kingdom at the age of two. He has several siblings: his elder brother, Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar, was a former Foreign Minister of Somalia.

Education
Omaar was educated at the Dragon School, Oxford, and Cheltenham College in Gloucestershire. He then studied Modern History at New College, Oxford.

General
Omaar began his journalistic career as a trainee for The Voice newspaper. In 1991, he moved to Ethiopia where he freelanced as a foreign correspondent, working mainly for the BBC World Service. A year later, Omaar returned to London to work as a producer and broadcast journalist for the BBC. He moved to South Africa after having been appointed the BBC's Africa correspondent. Omaar's wife and children were based there through 2004, and his regular commuting made domestic life a challenge.

His career highlights include reporting live on the conflicts in Somalia and Iraq.

BBC
Omaar covered the Iraq invasion for the weekday BBC news bulletins and BBC News. Many of his broadcasts were syndicated across the United States, where he became known as the Scud Stud.

Omaar has written a book about his time as the BBC's Iraq correspondent called Revolution Day. The book deals with the effects of the Saddam Hussein regime, UN sanctions, and of the war on Iraqi civilians.

Explaining why he eventually left the BBC, Omaar suggested that he wanted to operate independently and to take on assignments for people he wished to collaborate with. He also suggested that the BBC working environment was somewhat exclusivist on a class basis, and that he was guilty of this as well to some degree as a consequence of his public school upbringing.

Additionally, Omaar has expressed regret about the way in which he covered the invasion of Iraq during his time as a BBC correspondent. He suggested that he and his colleagues did pieces on Saddam Hussein, his regime and weapons inspectors, giving little coverage to the Iraqi people. Interviewed in John Pilger's documentary The War You Don't See (2010), Omaar also lamented that "one didn't press the most uncomfortable buttons hard enough" and called the coverage "a giant echo chamber".

Al Jazeera
In September 2006, Omaar joined Al Jazeera English. He served as a Middle Eastern correspondent for its London division.

During his time with the news organisation, Omaar presented the nightly weekday documentary series Witness. He also hosted the monthly The Rageh Omaar Report, his own investigative documentaries.

ITV News
In January 2013, it was announced that Omaar would be joining ITV News as a special correspondent. He was promoted the following year to ITV News' International Affairs Editor.

Since October 2015, alongside his duties as international affairs editor, Omaar has been a deputy newscaster of ITV News at Ten.

Since September 2017, Omaar has occasionally presented the ITV Lunchtime News, including the ITV News London Lunchtime Bulletin, and the ITV Evening News.

Awards and nominations
In 2003, Omaar was the recipient of an Ethnic Multicultural Media Academy award for the best TV journalist.

In 2008, he was also presented the Arab Media Watch Award for excellence in journalism.

In January 2014 and 2015, Omaar was nominated for the Services to Media award at the British Muslim Awards.

Personal life
Omaar is married to Alexander technique instructor Georgiana Rose "Nina" Montgomery-Cuninghame, the daughter of Sir John Montgomery-Cuninghame of Corsehill. The couple live in Chiswick, West London, with their three children.

Omaar maintains close contact with his family in Somalia, is an activist for the Somali community, and regularly attends its lectures and events.

Omaar became unwell during a live broadcast of the ITV News at Ten on 26 April 2024. ITV subsequently confirmed that he was 'receiving medical care'.

Television

 * An Islamic History of Europe, TV documentary for BBC Four : August 2005
 * The Miracles of Jesus, TV documentary for BBC One : beginning on 6 August 2006
 * The Dead Sea Scrolls. TV documentary BBC Four (February 2007)
 * Rageh Inside Iran, TV documentary for BBC Four (Feb 2007)
 * Islam in America, TV documentary for Al Jazeera English : October 2008
 * Immigration: The Inconvenient Truth, a three part Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, on how immigration has affected Britain, using Enoch Powell's 1968 Rivers of Blood speech as a starting point (7 to 21 April 2008)
 * The Vicar of Baghdad, TV documentary ITV1 (2008)
 * Pakistan's War. TV documentary for Al Jazeera English (Mid-Winter Production 2008/09)
 * Iran Season, TV documentary for Al Jazeera English: January 2009
 * Race and Intelligence: Science's last taboo. TV documentary for Channel 4 : October 2009.
 * The Life of Muhammad. TV documentary for BBC 2. This is a three-part series, which had its first showing on 11 July 2011 on BBC Two from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. The final edition of the series was on 25 July, on BBC 2 9 -10 pm. People on the programme included Karen Armstrong.
 * Panorama - Ivory Wars: Out of Africa, TV current affairs documentary BBC1 : 12 April 2012
 * The Ottomans: Europe's Muslim Emperors, BBC2, September 2013

Books

 * Revolution Day: The Real Story of the Battle for Iraq, Penguin Books (2005), ISBN 0-14-101716-3
 * Only Half of Me: Being a Muslim in Britain, Viking (2006), ISBN 0-670-91509-2

DVD

 * The Ottomans: Europe's Muslim Emperors (region 2)

title: Rageh Omaar


text:
National Forest

National Forest may refer to:
 * National forest or state forest, a forest administered or protected by a sovereign state
 * National forest (Brazil)
 * National forest (France)
 * National forest (United States)
 * State Forests (Poland)
 * The National Forest (England)

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

title: National Forest


text:
Talk:Giorgio Vasari

Antonio da Sangallo
Does anyone know which Antonio da Sangallo Vasari wrote about in Part 3 of the Vite? Looking over their histories, I think Antonio da Sangallo the Younger is more likely than Antonio da Sangallo the Elder. --Ricky81682 03:38, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Unhappily he did much to injure the fine medieval churches of Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce, from both of which he removed the original rood screen and loft, and remodelled the retro-choir in the Mannerist taste of his time.

the rood screen as an architectual element was abolished after clerical reforms in connection with the concil of Trient. Therfore it must not be Vasari being responsible for this action.

 * Flawless syllogism. Any relation to the architectural history of Santa Croce? --Wetman 03:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at the contents of the Oxford World Classics edition of the Lives (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019283410X/ref=sib_rdr_toc/002-7862258-5972864?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S006&j=0#reader-page) and noticed that not only did it lack many of the artists listed in the article, it also contained others not listed here, namely Domenico Ghirlandaio, Properzia de' Rossi, Domenico Beccafumi, Jacopo da Pontormo and Titian. I do not have any copies of the book myself so I do not know if it is mentioned that certain artists were cut or other biographies were added that were not originally there. Can anyone with more knowledge rectify this? Countmippipopolous 04:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes the list on the page is still incomplete, but I added the ones above (Properzia was already there), as well as Bandinelli. The Oxford edition is a very small selection of the actual book.--Stomme 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vasari and "Gothic"
I very much doubt that the following is true:
 * ". Since he lived during the time of the rebirth of ancient art and literature, he named the period intervening between the fall of the Roman Empire and his own Gothic, meaning rude and barbarous."

I must have missed the word "Gothic" in reading the sections of the Lives I've read. "Gothic" would have jumped from the page of course, and should be quoted at Gothic Revival where the term is discussed. Can we get a Vasari quote that does capture his authentic historic view of the revival of arts? That would surely beat any twaddle that I could substitute for this bit of text. His preface (Proemio) would be the place to look. The Lives are in paperback: I don't have it here. In his vita of Cimabue (on-line) he praises Cimibue for shedding the "first light" among his contemporaries: "For they, never caring to advance in their art, did everything not in the good manner of ancient Greece, but after the rude manner of those times." Rude manner. But not "gothic." Nor did he consider that he lived "during the time of the rebirth of ancient art and literature" which he placed in the preceding generations of course. --Wetman 22:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * After a brief research, I discovered that seemingly there's no full English translation of the Vite; the reference comes from a chapter (§ III)on architecture, and here it is, in my impromptu version:

"And there's another style, called German, with ornaments and proportions much different from both modern and ancient ones; they are not used by the best architects, who shun them as monstruous and barbaric, as everything in it lacks order so completely that it would be better called disorder or confusion; having they done in their buildings, so many that they swamped the world, doors decorated with subtle columns, shaped like vines, which can't have the strength to hold any kind of weight; and the same for the front and other ornaments of theirs they made a plethora of small tabernacles one above the other, with plenty of pyramids, points and leaves, that it seems impossible that they can be fit in; and in a way that they seem to be made with paper, instead of stone or marble. And they made such statues, breaks, ledges and tendrils that what they did became disproportionate, and often, by placing things sbove things above things they reached such height that the top of a portal touched the roof. This style was discovered by the Goths, who, having laid to waste the ancient buildings and being architects dead because of wars, built afterwards, those who were left, this way, crossing vaults with pointed ribs and peppered italy with these accursed buildings, so that, to be done with it, their manner was entirely left behind. And God preserve any state from resolving to adopt this style and concept, which, being so distant from the beauty of our own buildings, deserves not another word. Let's discuss, instead, vaults." --Tridentinus 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Just to elaborate on the previous passage, Vasari calls that other style "tedeschi" (German--blanket term used in Italian today as well), and conflates the term later in the paragraph with "Goti" (Goths). These are just various terms used by Vasari to refer to people living north of Tuscany (mostly Germanic, and north of the Alps). We shouldn't confuse Vasari's notion of "Gothic" or "German" with our own stylistic and historical labels, and we shouldn't forget Vasari's Tuscan bias. However, these ideas are helpful in understanding how he and others were classifying things. --Stomme 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth date
Some sources mention July 3, 1511 as birthdate, and others July 30. If anyone have independent reliable refrences, this should be crosschecked. (National Wikipedias disagree too.) This was spotted by Mika Róbert @ HuWp. --grin ✎ 10:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrea del Sarto
Undid the note about del Sarto and Browning about entry in Lives. This perhaps should be considered for the entry on the book, not about Vasari.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Giorgio Vasari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223093408/http://www.articlemyriad.com/36.htm to http://www.articlemyriad.com/36.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926150014/http://biblio.cribecu.sns.it/vasari/consultazione/Vasari/indice.html to http://biblio.cribecu.sns.it/vasari/consultazione/Vasari/indice.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031008214109/http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/giorgio.vasari/vaspref.htm to http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/giorgio.vasari/vaspref.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible error
"In Florence, Vasari also built the long passage, now called Vasari Corridor, which connects the Uffizi with the Palazzo Pitti on the other side of the river. The enclosed corridor passes alongside the River Arno on an arcade, crosses the Ponte Vecchio and winds around the exterior of several buildings. It was once the home of the Mercado de Vecchio.[12]"

While it is true that the Vasari Corridor connects the Uffizi with the Palazzo Pitti, I am pretty sure that its original purpose was to connect the Palazzo Vecchio, then official government residence to the Uffizi, which was the magistrates office building and then onward to the Palazzo Pitti which was the Medici family residence. In fact, both the Uffizi and the Palazzo Pitti are not on the same side of the Arno River in the part of Florence known as Oltrarno. Any map should confirm this. The article on Wikipedia about the Vasari Corridor also describes its path. AkilinaL (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Giorgio Vasari


text:
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada

The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) (Les Assemblées de la Pentecôte du Canada) is a Pentecostal Christian denomination and the largest evangelical church in Canada. Its headquarters is located in Mississauga, Ontario.

The PAOC is theologically evangelical and Pentecostal, emphasizing the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. It historically has had strong connections with the Assemblies of God in the United States. It is affiliated with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the World Assemblies of God Fellowship.

Early history (1906-1925)
The association has its origins in the adoption of Pentecostal beliefs by various churches in the Ottawa Valley (Ontario), notably through the preaching of Canadian Methodist pastor Robert McAllister who visited the Azusa Street Revival of 1906. A majority of Pentecostals were found in the prairie provinces due in part to the large numbers of United States immigrants who brought their faith with them. Because of these influences, Canadian Pentecostals maintained close ties to their American counterparts.

A 1909 attempt to organize the Pentecostal Movement in the East failed because of opposition against institutionalization. In 1918, however, a decision was made to form the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. The association was officially founded in 1919 by 33 churches. At the time, the PAOC adhered to the non-Trinitarian Oneness doctrine and there were plans to join the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), another Oneness Pentecostal denomination based in the U.S. However, those plans never materialized, and the Canadian body remained an independent organization with no formal US ties. Around the same time that eastern Pentecostals were creating the PAOC, Pentecostals in Saskatchewan and Alberta were joining the US based Assemblies of God instead.

In 1920, the PAOC chose to affiliate with the Assemblies of God. Pentecostals in the West were incorporated into the PAOC, which continued to function as a distinct sub-division of the Assemblies of God. As a result, the PAOC united most Canadian Pentecostals in one denomination. The Assemblies of God, however, was a Trinitarian fellowship, and the PAOC was required to repudiate the Oneness doctrine and embrace the doctrine of the Trinity. This action resulted in the first major split within Canadian Pentecostalism and the creation of the Apostolic Church of Pentecost in 1921 by former PAOC members.

For the next five years, the PAOC experienced growth. It began a national paper, The Pentecostal Testimony, in 1920 and established a centralized overseas missionary policy for improved effectiveness. In 1925, the PAOC asked to be released from the Assemblies of God over differences in missionary vision. This was granted and was an amiable parting, and the two groups have continued to maintain close ties.

Growth (1926-1974)
As the movement expanded, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada began to include members from across Canadian society, and larger congregations resulted. For example, in 1928 Calvary Temple in Winnipeg, Manitoba, bought the First Baptist Church which seated 1,500 people, a very large church by Canadian standards even today. In 1925, the PAOC opened Bethel Bible Institute (Now known as Horizon College & Seminary, which later moved to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan ) in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which was the first of several Pentecostal institutions dedicated to theological education. As time went on, the PAOC established a stronger financial base allowing for the construction of new buildings. Notably, Central Tabernacle in Edmonton, Alberta, (has been demolished, and moved to their new location, now North Pointe, in the north end of the city) was built in 1972 which accommodations for 1,800 and Winnipeg's Calvary Temple completed a new 2,500 seat church building in 1974.

Recent history (1979-present)
Facing the same challenge of many Canadian churches in the latter years of the 20th century, the PAOC worked hard to continue its growth. Under the leadership of General Superintendent James MacKnight (1983-1996), 102 additional churches were added to the PAOC. A greater emphasis on international missions work since that time has led to growth overseas.

According to Statistics Canada, Pentecostal growth has varied (statistics Canada does not collect data specific to the PAOC, but as by far the largest Pentecostal group in Canada, it is likely to reflect the statistics regarding Canadian Pentecostals). The 1991 census showed a 29% increase. Between 1991 and 2001, the census reported a 15% decline to 369,480 adherents (Extrapolating the percentage growth indicates approximately 435,000 +/-2,500 adherents in 1991). While self-reported statistics from the PAOC show plateaued growth, the 2011 census indicates 478,705 adherents - a 29% increase over 2001, and 10% increase over 1991 census data. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has pointed out that changes to choices available on census forms over the years brings into question the accuracy and usefulness of Statistics Canada data on evangelical denominations, so it is likely PAOC data is a more accurate measure. The PAOC had "fewer than 225,000 members and adherents as of 1994".

According to a census of the association of churches in 2022, it would have 1,047 churches and 271,893 members.

Beliefs
The central beliefs of the Pentecostal Assemblies are summarized in its Statement of Fundamental and Essential Truths. The statement is consistent with general evangelical and Pentecostal beliefs.

The Pentecostal Assemblies, as stated in the Fundamental and Essential Truths, believe the Bible is the "all-sufficient source of faith and practice" and the "complete revelation and very Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit". It subscribes to the doctrine of the Trinity, believing that God exists as three persons: the Father, the Son who is Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal Assemblies believes that salvation has been provided for all humanity through the atonement of Christ upon the cross, and this was proven by his resurrection from the dead. Those who have faith in Christ and repent are born again of the Holy Spirit and receive eternal life. The person who repents and has faith in Christ is justified, not because of the believer's own merit but solely because the believer has accepted Christ as savior.

The Pentecostal Assemblies teach that the sanctification of a believer is both instantaneous and progressive. The believer is sanctified as the Holy Spirit teaches the believer through the Word of God and produces within the believer the character of Christ. Consistent with Pentecostal theology, the denomination teaches that Christians should seek the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is an experience distinct from and subsequent to the new birth. With this experience comes a more intimate knowledge of Christ and an empowerment to witness and to grow spiritually. The initial evidence of receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit is speaking in other tongues. Through spiritual gifts believers can minister effectively by both building up the church and demonstrating the presence of God within the church. The Pentecostal Assemblies believes that divine healing is provided within Christ's atonement, and prayer for the sick and gifts of healing are encouraged.

The denomination teaches that the universal church is the Body of Christ and includes as members all who have been born again. Local churches observe two ordinances: the Lord's Supper and water baptism by immersion. The PAOC believes in a dispensationalist and premillennialist eschatology which includes the pre-Tribulation rapture of the church and the Second Coming of Christ.

The Pentecostal Assemblies believe that marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman. The marriage vow can only be broken by "marital unfaithfulness involving adultery, homosexuality, or incest". Even in those circumstances, however, the PAOC believes reconciliation is the desired option, and it discourages divorce for all other reasons. It views remarriage as acceptable in the event of a former spouse's death, in cases where the former spouse committed marital unfaithfulness, or if the former spouse has remarried. PAOC members are encouraged to tithe.

Local churches
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada is organized as a "cooperative fellowship". At the local level, Pentecostal Assemblies adhere to congregational polity. Congregations appoint pastors, elect governing boards, and manage their own local affairs.

Districts and branches
Local churches are organized into geographical middle judicatories called districts. A district is governed by a biennial conference, a representative body composed of credential holders with voting privileges and local church delegates. Districts examine and recommend credentials for ministers and elect their own officers. District executives have oversight over all activities of the PAOC within district borders. A branch is a non-geographical administrative unit equivalent to a district; however, a branch's activities are confined to certain ethnic or language groups.

District Offices

 * British Columbia & Yukon District
 * Alberta & Northwest Territories District
 * Saskatchewan District
 * Manitoba & Northwestern Ontario District
 * Western Ontario District
 * Eastern Ontario & Nunavut District
 * Quebec District
 * Maritime District

General Conference
The governing body of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada is the General Conference which meets regularly every two years. It includes all ordained ministers, other credential holders, credentialed missionaries, and some ex officio members serving in official capacities. Each local church is entitled to appoint one lay delegate to the General Conference, and churches with more than 200 members are entitled to send one additional lay delegate per every 100 members.

The General Executive consists of the Executive Officers, district superintendents, the regional directors of international missions program, five additional credential holders elected by the General Conference, and three lay persons elected by the General Conference. The executive officers include the general superintendent, the assistant general superintendent for fellowship services, and the assistant general superintendent for international missions, all of which are elected by the General Conference.

General Superintendents

 * George A. Chambers (1919-1920)
 * Hugh M. Cadwalder (1920-1923)
 * George A. Chambers (1924-1934)
 * James Swanson (1935-1936)
 * Daniel N. Buntain (1937-1944)
 * Campbell B. Smith (1945-1952)
 * Walter E. McAlister (1953-1962)
 * Tom Johnstone (1963-1968)
 * Robert W. Taitinger (1969-1982)
 * James M. MacKnight (1983-1996)
 * William D. Morrow (1997-2008)
 * David R. Wells (2008-)

Education
It has 8 Bible colleges.

 * Summit Pacific College, Abbotsford, British Columbia which includes a Graduate School, formerly a separate institution named Canadian Pentecostal Seminary.
 * Pentecostal Sub-Arctic Leadership Training (S.A.L.T.) College, Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Northwest Territories
 * Vanguard College, Edmonton, Alberta
 * Horizon College and Seminary, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
 * Master's College and Seminary, Peterborough, Ontario
 * Aboriginal Bible Academy, Deseronto, Ontario
 * Global University Canada, Toronto, Ontario
 * Quebec Bible Institute, Longueuil, Quebec

title: Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada


text:
SCEA

SCEA or Scea may refer to:

 * Scea, a genus of moths
 * SCEA v. Hotz, a lawsuit involving Sony
 * Single choice early action, a type of early admission process offered by some U.S. institutions
 * Sony Interactive Entertainment America, formerly known as Sony Computer Entertainment America
 * South Carolina Education Association
 * Sun Certified Enterprise Architect, a professional certification
 * Swan Christian Education Association, in Perth, Australia
 * El Amarillo Airport (ICAO: SCEA), Chaitén, Los Lagos Region, Chile

title: SCEA


text:
Amani

Amani may refer to:

Language

 * Amani, peace in Swahili Language
 * Amani, (أماني) aspiration in Arabic

Places

 * Amani, Greece, municipality on the island of Chios
 * Amani, Hormozgan, a village in Iran
 * Amani, Muheza, an administrative ward in Tanga Region, Tanzania
 * Amani Constituency, a parliamentary constituency on Zanzibar, Tanzania
 * Amani High School, Kabul, Afghanistan
 * Amani Nature Reserve, Tanzania

People

 * Amani (musician) (born 1980), Kenyan singer
 * Amani Aguinaldo (born 1995), Filipino footballer
 * Amani Al-Khatahtbeh (born 1992), American author and tech entrepreneur
 * Amani Ballour (born 1987), Syrian pediatrician and subject of The Cave
 * Amani Bledsoe (born 1998), American football player
 * Amani Haydar, Australian domestic violence advocate and author, winner of the 2022 Victorian Premier's Prize for Nonfiction
 * Amani Hooker (born 1998), American football player
 * Amani Lewis (born 1994), American artist
 * Amani Oruwariye (born 1996), American football player
 * Samuel Aondo (born 2003), Kenyan Entrepreneur and investor
 * Amani Toomer (born 1974), American football player

Other uses

 * Abeid Amani Karume International Airport, Zanzibar, Tanzania
 * Amani sunbird, species of bird
 * "Amani" character on the animated television series The New Archies
 * "Amani", 1991 song by Hong Kong rock band Beyond
 * Amani Afrika (Peace in Africa), tour operator in Kisongo, Tanzania
 * Amani, equal to 20 afghani

title: Amani


text:
The Murder Junkies

The Murder Junkies are an American punk rock band, best known for having been GG Allin's final backing band before his death. They perform songs from Allin's back catalog as well as their own original material. They are the third GG Allin backing band to bear the name.

Earlier bands bearing the name
The original Murder Junkies was a Texas band formed independently of Allin which performed as his backing band for several live dates in the late 1980s.

The second Murder Junkies was a studio band including Allin's friend Mark Sheehan on guitar which recorded the Watch Me Kill six-track EP, released on Fuckin' A/Stomach Ache Records in 1991.

Formation and career with Allin (1990–1993)
The third Murder Junkies lineup was formed in 1990 as Allin's new backing band and rehearsed while he concluded his prison sentence. The original line-up consisted of guitarist "Chicken" John Rinaldi (later a 2007 San Francisco mayoral candidate), GG's elder brother Merle Allin on bass, and drummer Donald "Dino Sex" Sachs.

Rinaldi left the band later in 1991, and voiced negative opinions about the experience in Todd Phillips's documentary Hated: GG Allin And The Murder Junkies. He was replaced by William Weber. Dee Dee Ramone was also recruited to play guitar at the same time as Weber, but quit shortly thereafter, without playing any live dates with the band.

GG Allin and the Murder Junkies recorded their sole studio album, Brutality and Bloodshed for All, for Alive Records in April 1993. Their subsequent tour, shortly followed by Allin's death from a drug overdose on June 28, was chronicled by roadie Evan Cohen in the book I Was A Murder Junkie: The Last Days Of GG Allin.

Activity after Allin's death; breakup (1993–1999)
Dino, Merle, and Weber decided to continue the band, and recruited new singer Mike Denied, former bassist with New York City band The Denied. They released a mini-album Feed My Sleaze in 1995. "The Right To Remain Violent", a 7" single, appeared the following year.

The Murder Junkies toured throughout the 1990s and went through several more vocalists, including Mike Hudson, formerly of the Pagans (he only lasted for two shows in 1994), Jeff Clayton of Antiseen, and J. B. Beverley, a musician from the Washington, D.C. area. They broke up in 1999.

Reformation, subsequent activity (2003–present)
The band reformed with Clayton singing for a tour in June 2003, the 10th anniversary of GG Allin's death. They performed alongside a version of Allin's first band, The Jabbers, for several shows.

In 2005, the band completed a tour of continental Europe. In 2006, they appeared at two shows supporting CKY, and toured as the opening act for Hank Williams III.

The band released the album Road Killers in 2011, followed by A Killing Tradition in 2013 and Killing For Christ Sakes the following year. The lineup currently features Merle Allin, Dino Sex, guitarist Duane Rollick, and vocalist Brandon Fergus.

Studio albums

 * as GG Allin & The Murder Junkies

 * as The Murder Junkies

Live albums

 * as GG Allin & The Murder Junkies

Extended Plays

 * as The Murder Junkies

Singles

 * as GG Allin & The Murder Junkies

title: The Murder Junkies


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton

GeneralPatton
final (43/9/4) ending 03:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) It is an honor to nominate GeneralPatton. He has been here for several months and has shown himself to be an excellent, even-tempered editor. GeneralPatton is active in implementing and proposing policy and often can be found on the IRC channel. I strongly feel he should become a sysop. Neutralitytalk 03:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I humbly accept. GeneralPatton 03:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Neutralitytalk 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Strongly. Arminius 03:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Mhmm. ugen64 04:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Gentgeen 09:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Previous comments were several months ago. Users change their minds. Patton is a good user. Snowspinner 21:36, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I think people can change, especially in concern to their early days at this project. I've seen a lot of good out of GeneralPatton, and I think he'd make a fine admin.  BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 21:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Ambi 00:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Antandrus 00:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Support. Likely to be a very fine admin.
 * 9) He may be a disputant on and off, but he knows how to deal with those disputes in a calm, collected fashion. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:24, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * 10) Nicholas 01:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) I don't vote here all that often, but Patton has my wholehearted support. He's a trustworthy user who has done a lot of good work here for a long time. →Raul654 03:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Mike H 05:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Tuf-Kat 05:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Cribcage 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) * User:Cribcage seems to be a voting sock puppet. I normally would not say that directly, but their contribs are something special. -- Netoholic @ 06:01, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * 16) IZAK 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Easy descision. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Has been polite when I have observed him; I see no reason to oppose. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. 172 18:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk) ]] 21:29, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Danny 01:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Seems like a good user. - Vague | Rant 04:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. func (talk) 21:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Xtra 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Good nomination. I don't really care about the comment he made over four months ago. Adminship should be no big deal. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  02:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) I am confident that GP has the project's best interests in mind. He has been extremely active in metawork (e.g., policy), and communicates admirably well for a non-native English speaker. --Slowking Man 03:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Friendly and courteous user who seems actively interested in wikipedia policy. CXI 04:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) * User:CXI has about 60 edits. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * 31) * User:Netoholic's edit count also contains a 6. CXI 07:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Duk 05:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Has been very helpful when I've hopped on IRC with a question about arbitration. Rex 06:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. I've been intermittent touch with Patton for several months, in which I have seen him grow from someone who I'd be wary to give adminship to (like the general he's taken the name of, he was a bit brash and impulsive), to someone I feel can be trusted with the duties and responsibilities of administration.  His more recent contributions have often centered around adding hard to find details (always with a source) and often attempting to remove the POV in articles which usually generate them naturally. Oberiko 13:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Euphoria 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Proteus (Talk) 19:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) You have my full support. We would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia by denying such a helpful and dedicated user admin powers—Trevor Caira 21:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 38) Absolutely (I thought he was already). I'd like to note that the username thing is selectively enforced–that, or no one realizes I named myself after August von Mackensen (granted, that was sixteen months ago). I do agree that he should take Lupo's advice. Mackensen (talk) 04:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Profoss 23:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Guanaco 02:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. +sj +  03:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Dori | Talk 03:37, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. Rhobite 21:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 44) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 23:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 45) Strong Support. I checked a number of his edits, his interactions with other users and grilled him over them on irc. I could find no current flaws, so he has my support. He then answered some truely tough questions from me, and gave me his opinion on a hypothetical scenario. His answers were very much to my liking, so that earns him a strong support. Kim Bruning 01:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 46) Support [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Last we talked, the devil told me the temperatures in hell were still unseasonably warm. Everyking 06:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there some incident that we should know about when deciding how to vote? Please shed some light for us if you can, I know I'd certainly like to know the reason why this candidate would invoke such a response so I can evaluate in view of all the facts. Shane King 06:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) My first and only experience with the General has not been good: apparantly he got Image:Vaginal syphilis.jpg deleted without any process (that I have found), he then uploaded the same image at Image:Vaginal syphilis(disturbing image).jpg without any comment or description. He has replaced small thumbs in the Syphilis article with links, disregarding former discussion (or making any comments himself) and not using the "edit summary". The result is two paragraphs starting with a line with an image link and thumbdescription. While I know the comlplaint doesn't really belong here I suspect others would be asking if I didn't give my reasons. --Dittaeva 13:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Per agreement, further discussion has been moved to User_talk:Dittaeva
 * Oppose as per comment added by Michael Snow. 6 months may be time enough to gain sufficient experience and maturity after making such a statement, but I can't see a big difference. Andre ( talk )A| 20:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain "but I can't see a big difference"? It’s not a question of maturity, at issue is about feeling comfortable. As i've said, I've rejected a previous RFA because i still didn't feel as comfortable as I wanted. GeneralPatton 20:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. Nor one who uses Croatian insults in edit summaries ("pickica", "serem ti sliku kralja petra" ). Gzornenplatz 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Insulting other users, but doing so in another language to disguise what's going on is not admin-like behaviour. It was a long time ago, so I would have excused it if he had admitted it up front and apologised, but since it was another user who had to bring this behaviour to light, I'm afraid I have to oppose. Shane King 01:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * It happened in the first month or so of my time on wiki, back in May, and after Avala harassed me a few times and made some reckless edits... Requests_for_arbitration/Avala, his Arbcom has shown Avala to be a problem user. I just desperately tried to have Avala back away somehow (using methods from local language forums), I was still new at Wiki then. GeneralPatton 01:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, if it really is an isolated and early incident against a single problem user as you say, I'll remove my opposition. I don't believe in holding people's mistakes against them forever, although as I noted, I prefer that they admit them upfront. I'll think on this some more before deciding whether I can support or will stay neutral. Shane King 02:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. I don't think he's a bad guy but we've butted heads over his inability to understand what NPOV means even in the most basic sense. As reference, see our discussions on Talk:Robert Oppenheimer (a few months ago), Talk:Wernher von Braun (a few months ago), and Talk:Nazi Germany (last week, when he suggested, and defended, his use of a self-described holocaust/historical denial website as a valid source for resolving a minor squabble). I think he is an earnest contributor but I don't think he has very good negotiation skills, good historical reasoning, or good methodology. And I think he has some legitimate conceptual problems with understand what NPOV means in any applicable sense. If you want to see this in practice, again, view my frustrations on Talk:Robert Oppenheimer. Sorry, GeneralPatton, nothing against you personally, you seem like a nice enough guy, and I don't think you mean to antagonize, but I think you often just don't get what Wikipedia articles should be about in a very fundamental way, and I haven't really seen any improvement in this, to be honest. I haven't seen you use good editing judgment or communication skills. These seem to me to be rather important for any administrator position, even with as lack-of-status as it is supposed to be. Even if the user has reformed since last July (which my latest disagreement with him suggests to me that he has not), I see this as being a somewhat provisional state and definitely not compelling a vote for adminship. (I'm someone who sometimes has strong opinions about uses of historical sources and statements, so please read the discussions linked and decide for yourself, don't just take my word for it.) --Fastfission 05:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For a response see : User talk:Fastfission GeneralPatton 05:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a response, but one that's not really getting at the essence of my problems. For my "responses" (clarifications, further explanation), see User_talk:GeneralPatton. I'm really not trying to grind your goose, GeneralPatton, I just don't think you're the best choice for adminship. That doesn't mean I don't think you should participate in Wikipedia, I just think you lack certain comprehensional abilities and communication skills which would be essential for being labeled an admin of the English wiki. But again, I urge others to look at the links, decide for themselves, this is just my interpretation. I've only labeled it "strong" because I want to draw attention to it, obviously, I don't think it makes my vote count for any more than it normally would. This is not a vote against you, this is a vote against your adminship. They are different things, please don't get so strung out (17 edits to my Talk page in one day) about my one negative vote. --Fastfission 20:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Poor (nil) use of edit summaries and "Show preview".  I don't see any effort to perform routine maintenance.  Has some well-documented biases, and is friends with some the worst POV warriors around here.  I also don't like that it looks like he's using friends from IRC to do favors for him (re: the syphillis image). -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Does not make proper use of edit summaries.  —AlanBarrett 16:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose . The name sounds really disturbing. I can reconsider this, if the name is changed. --M7it 18:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, though not strongly enough to cast my vote this way because of it. To quote from the login screen, "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a politician, military or religious figure or event." Sarge Baldy 22:12, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've also cancelled my own vote as the User has posted a request to change his name. M7it 22:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges.  I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away.  The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship.  Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes. Pedant 01:13, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * 2) Serious reservations, not enough to oppose as of now. Very Verily 07:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Opposing. Very Verily  10:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) OpposeCheeseDreams 19:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I guess I'm not really opposing, I'm just not very confident in this user. Moved to neutral. Andre ( talk )A| 21:33, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Request an explanation of how GeneralPatton reconciles accepting this nomination with the quote I have placed in the comments section below. --Michael Snow 18:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've made this comment 6 months ago, when I was far less accustomed to wikipedia than now. GeneralPatton 18:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually it was 4 months and 5 days ago, when you were already active for 3.5 months, so should have been sufficiently accustomed to Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * An acceptable explanation having been provided, I move this vote to neutral. I have not investigated GeneralPatton's history enough at this point to make a more informed judgment. --Michael Snow 22:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Insulting language isn't acceptable for prospective admins. However, event was 6 months ago.  Moved from oppose to neutral. ElBenevolente 02:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm impressed by the patience I've seen from him in discussions with some problematic editors that shall remain unnamed here. GP's edits seem generally good, sometimes a tiny bit over-enthusiastic, but nothing serious. But please, use edit summaries, provide sources for images you upload (even if they're WWII images!), and try hard to avoid pointless insinuations (like the one on Nov 16, 2004). Shouldn't be too difficult, given that you managed to keep your temper on far more controversial subjects. Other than that: good luck to you. Lupo 08:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * 4312 edits as of now. Shane King 06:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * previous nomination, which he rejected at the time. -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Quoting GeneralPatton from Requests for adminship/Nikola Smolenski:
 * ...it is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. That is why I personally would never accept being an admin, I am biased, I admit it, but so are you, and the truth is somewhere in between.

While I don't necessarily give credence to all of the accusations made there by Avala and others about GeneralPatton, and I recognize that people can change their minds and come to regret previous statements of commitment, I think some explanation is called for in this case. --Michael Snow 18:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I made some beginner mistakes when I joined wiki, being offended by the individuals you have mentioned here and their almost regular push of a POV into specific articles. Since then I've generally learned not to get upset over that what I saw as offensive. Personally, I always invite and accept community input. I can present you with some examples of the things I saw as offensive if you want. I should also note that I rejected an adminship nomination back in early September because I still didn’t think I was ready for the job. GeneralPatton 18:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I also want to note that im not a native English speaker, so my choice of “biased” wasn’t really the best choice of words. I wanted to explain to Nikola,Avala,... that as they feel strongly about their oppinion, I also have my own dislike of their POV. However, unlike some of them, I've never imposed a highly controversial POV on articles. In fact i've made all efforts for NPOV, no matter how much I personally agree/disagree. And have never been in an argument absent emotional revert war. In fact i've worked on trying to end several revert wars on wiki. GeneralPatton 20:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Explanation sounds reasonable to me. I note that some of Avala's problems also seem to have stemmed partly from not being a native English speaker. I particularly appreciate GeneralPatton's understanding that one must strive for NPOV in spite of one's own personal views. --Michael Snow 22:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I just saw this nomination, and that very comment instantly sprung to my mind... :) GeneralPatton exchanged some pretty heavy words with Avala etc, and he edit-warred with Igor, Nikola etc every now and then, but hasn't generally been overly insistent with regard to some extreme opinions, so this could be treated as something that was "back in the day...". I would vote, but I never bothered to investigate his edits unrelated to ex-yu stuff, although I noticed that there was a fair bit of them. I hope it all turns out for the best. If not, well, we have measures against that. --Joy [shallot]   21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

since GeneralPatton asked me within minutes of my vote in opposition, I'm copying the following from my talk page, I'm sure he will see it here: [begin] Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges. I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away. The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship. Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes.
 * Hi, could you please explain this further? The comments in question where made back in May . Only around a month after I initially joined, and may I add that I was not particularly active up to that time. I've been pretty active ever since, from editing articles to community work. GeneralPatton 01:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ok, first, you edited this page, my talk page twice within minutes of me voting to oppose your adminship. That right there is a little insistent.

 * Of your 50 most recent edits, only seven were in the wikipedia namespace, 5 of those were on your votes for adminship page, and it seems you are trying to 'manage' your own election.

 * At a quick glance:

22:03, 2004 Dec 3 (hist) Talk:Battle of the Bulge (welcome to fourth grade english)

within the last week you behaved insultingly, your edit summary provided no info on the actual edit as well.

 * to explain "3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time" and "longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship" :

I don't think I need any more admins who behave insultingly, and the longer it takes for you to learn that, the longer I will expect you to work before I am willing to award you extra privileges. I think one week on wikipedia is plenty of time to learn good wiki manners.

 * "I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores " ... "Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes"

I'd like to see more edits in the wikipedia: namespace and just all in all to notice you doing chores like reverting vandalism, helping to negotiate consensus, etc. Not that you haven't done those, but I am on an awful lot, and haven't noticed that much of what I would term chores from you. I read a lot more than I edit, so I generally expect to notice an admin candidate before they are nominated.

 * "a little more sensitive to the needs of the community":

the community needs less insults and more politesse... "more lubrication and less friction" and even more so from an admin. You will probably become an admin anyway, but I find it odd that you are tracking your opposition and immediately interrogating them, particularly odd to have you query me twice before I can respond once. You haven't improved my opinion of you. Not that I have a bad opinion of you, there are far worse users, but you could take a look at the behavior of admins I HAVE supported, and you will note that their behavior is pretty near impeccable. Whether you gain adminship this time or not, I hope that my comments are of use to you. I don't bear you any ill will. Pedant 01:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

 * I don't write "welcome to fourth grade english", that was an other user, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not write "welcome to fourth grade english", User:Xmnemonic wrote that heading, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. I do appricate that you have a high set of standards. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * alright, I'll delete that part, but 2 edit summaries in a row showed that same text, so will you agree that it is a poor edit summary? Will you allow me to hold the opinion that I think you could do a little better if you tried?  May I be allowed to expect admins to be chosen from the group that tries to do a little better than average?  You don't need to answer on my talk page, I read everything [wp:Requests for Adminship].  I don't want to hammer on you, but you are really showing me more reasons to oppose promoting you to more privileges at this time.Pedant 02:33, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * If made administrator, I shall do my best to be far and most considerate, working up to the highest standard of dedication, fairness and objectivity. GeneralPatton 02:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[end]

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * Probably Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings, I'd also like to help with policymaking and resolving disputes.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I’m pretty pleased of most of mine contributions at Wikipedia, I feel honored and privileged I can make a contribution to a project like this. If I really have to single one out, that'd probably be the Erich von Manstein that gained the Featured Article status.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * Probably the Avala incident that has been mentioned here. This time I’d just let the Arbcom do its work.


text:
PAOC

PAOC is an acronym for:

 * Pan-African Ornithological Congress
 * Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
 * Public Affairs Operations Center

title: PAOC


text:
2005 British Columbia electoral reform referendum

A referendum was held in the Canadian province of British Columbia on May 17, 2005, to determine whether or not to adopt the recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to replace the existing first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP) with a single transferable vote system (BC-STV). It was held in conjunction with the BC Legislative Assembly election of 2005. Voters were given two ballots at that time: a ballot to vote for a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (MLA) in their constituency and a referendum ballot. The referendum received considerable support from the electorate but failed in meeting the 60-percent threshold that had been set. A second referendum was held in 2009.

Background
The first half of the 2000s was marked by a growing movement in favour of electoral reform in Canada. Liberals in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario campaigned successfully in each of these provinces with commitments to electoral reform. A reform initiative was launched as well in PEI, as well, in response to a series of lopsided elections in that province. In 2004, the Law Commission of Canada published an influential report on electoral reform, with a strong recommendation in favour of a mixed member proportional (MMP) system.

In British Columbia, impetus was created by the anomalous provincial election result in 1996, in which the NDP won reelection as a majority government with 39.5 percent of the vote and 39 seats, despite gaining 3 percent fewer votes than the Liberals at 41.8 percent of the total and 33 seats. The balance of the vote was picked up by the Reform Party, which won 9.3 percent of the vote (two seats) and the Progressive Democrats with 5.7 percent of the vote (one seat), representing a perfect example of vote-splitting by conservative and liberal parties leading the NDP to majority status. There followed another lopsided election in 2001, in which the Liberals won 77 out of 79 seats, virtually wiping out the opposition, with 57 percent of the vote.

According to Pilon, "British Columbia has had a long dalliance with voting reform initiatives" municipally and provincially since the 1930s, coinciding with the emergence of left-wing forces capable of splitting the vote and going "up the middle" to take power, such as the way that the NDP won the 1996 election. In his view, this is what led the Liberals to take up voting system reform at the provincial level in the late 1990s.

The Liberal government of Premier Gordon Campbell had campaigned in favour of electoral reform in 2001, and was under pressure to deliver. Following the Liberal victory in the 2001, the Liberals faced the political dilemma of having campaigned on an issue that no longer interested them in the same way. Meanwhile, the Green party attempted to use the provincial initiative referendum process to force the issue, and although they were unsuccessful, this kept the issue alive. In 2003, the Liberal government, with the agreement of the opposition New Democratic Party, established a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, mandating it to propose a new electoral system that would subsequently be put to a referendum.

Timeline of Citizen's Assembly process
The following indicates some of the key events leading up to the referendum:
 * September 20, 2002 — The government appoints former British Columbia Liberal Party leader Gordon Gibson to recommend the structure of the Citizens' Assembly.
 * April 28, 2003 — The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform is created by motion of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.
 * January 2004 — The Citizen's Assembly is convened. It consists of 161 members, one woman and one man randomly selected from each of the 79 existing electoral districts, two first Nations members and a chair.
 * January to October 2004 — Assembly proceedings include a learning phase, public hearings and a deliberative phase.
 * October 23 and 23. Assembly members vote on different options in three separate votes. A first vote asked members to express their preference for MMP or STV. This vote yielded a strong, but not unanimous preference for STV: 123 votes for STV vs. 31 for MMP. Members then voted between retaining FPTP or moving to STV. There was a strong preference for STV: 142 votes for STV vs. 11 for retaining FPTP. Finally, the Assembly voted in favour of submitting a recommendation in favour of STV to the public in a referendum on May 17, 2005: 146 in favour vs. 7 against.
 * December 10, 2004 — The final report of the Assembly, recommending BC-STV, is presented to the government.
 * February 2005 — A separate Final Report on the work of the Assembly is submitted to the legislature by the Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in February 2005.
 * May 17, 2005 — The referendum is held in conjunction with the 2005 BC election.

Proposed changes to the electoral system
The current electoral system in BC is first-past-the-post (FPTP). In this system, a voter gives one vote to one candidate in one electoral district. Each political party runs no more than one candidate in each electoral district. The candidate with the most votes in the electoral district wins, whether they received a majority of votes or not, and is charged with representing all voters in the electoral district.

The proposed electoral system is a customized version of single transferable vote (STV) called BC-STV. In this system, each electoral district would have between 2 and 7 seats depending on its population and geographic size, and electors would vote for district representatives. Although each elector would have only one vote, as the expression STV indicates, the ballot would allow electors to rank their preferences. The STV model proposed by the Assembly avoided the use of party lists, which they felt would be unpopular with British Columbians. Instead, voters would choose among candidates by name and when ranking candidates, could choose candidates from different parties, thus retaining the maximum amount of freedom in choosing whom to elect.

Having multiple seats in one district would allow those seats to be allocated in a way that reflects the distribution of votes among the district's candidates in a roughly proportional way. Political parties may nominate as many candidates in an electoral district as there are available seats, or they might prefer to concentrate their efforts on a smaller number of candidates. Major parties will typically nominate more candidates than minor parties, as they will be hopeful of electing a larger number of MLAs. Candidates would be grouped by political party in separate columns on the ballot paper.

To establish the winners, a quota for the district would be determined based on the number of valid ballots cast and the number of seats available in the district. All the votes would be counted and sorted by the voters' first preferences. Those candidates with enough first-preference votes to meet or exceed the quota are elected. A multiple-step vote counting and transfer process is then used to determine the winners of the remaining seats in the district, based on voters' alternate preferences. Although the mechanics of the vote-transfer process can be complicated, the general principle is that all votes should count, so that if a voter's first-preference candidate is not elected, or has more votes than needed to be elected, the votes in question will be transferred to another candidate based on alternate preferences.

Question and thresholds
The question asked was: Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform?

Although according to Pilon, there was no compelling legal or historical precedent for doing so, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act established two super-majority thresholds for the referendum results to be binding on government:
 * at least 60 percent of the valid votes cast in support of the proposal and
 * a simple majority in favour in at least 60 percent of all electoral districts (48 out of 79).

The campaign
Although the Citizen's Assembly had come to a remarkable degree of consensus in favour of BC-STV after months of study and deliberation, there is an important distinction to be made between such a consultative process and a general referendum in which there is much less opportunity for learning and deliberation by ordinary voters and where political interests are more likely to come into play. As LeDuc et al. point out, "Deliberative democracy and direct democracy are different processes, and the dynamic of a referendum campaign will typically be quite different than that of a deliberative body."

The referendum campaign started with the Citizen's Assembly's announcement of its conclusions in late October 2004. This was followed by an initial flush of media coverage, including a favorable op. ed. by the influential Gordon Gibson in the Globe and Mail. However, other Globe and Mail coverage was much less favourable, and indeed dismissive. Provincial media seemed more sympathetic, drawing attention to the work of the Citizen's Assembly. Some high-profile media and columnists eventually endorsed the STV proposal, based on the case put forward by the Citizen's Assembly but many others remained opposed.

Public efforts to educate the public about the referendum were under the responsibility of Elections BC and the BC government. In order to protect the neutrality of its role, Elections BC did not provide information on the Citizens' Assembly proposal in comparison to the FPTP system. Its role was to ensure that voters had information on voter registration opportunities and information on the administration of the referendum. This left responsibility for promoting awareness and understanding of the two electoral systems to the government. In March 2005, the government established a Referendum Information Office with a mandate to provide voters with information to make an informed choice on the referendum question. The Referendum Information Office created a website and fact sheets, mailed a brochure to every residential household in the province, and established a toll-free information line (Elections BC Report 2005: 36).

Poll results about the extent of voter knowledge about the referendum suggest that these efforts were ineffective (see the section on Voter polls and surveys, below). An unfortunate hiccup flagged by Dennis Pilon 2010: 78) is that the brochures distributed to each household by the Referendum Information Office resembled newspaper advertising inserts and were likely discarded unopened by most voters.

However, the onus of informing the public did not rest exclusively on public organizations. As noted, the media also played a role, and aside from expressing their own views or those of their columnists, they also provided a space for advocates on both sides to express their views (Pilon 2010: 79).

Legislation regulating the referendum process did not establish a formal role for "Yes/No" groups but required advertising sponsors to register, include identification statements on all advertising and submit financial reports following the referendum. No spending limits were imposed on referendum advertising sponsors" (Elections BC 2005: 36). Two groups did form in an attempt to fill the information gap and influence the outcome. In support of the STV proposal was a group called YES-STV led organizationally by a local advocacy group called Fair Voting BC. It included members of the former Citizen's Assembly, activists from Fair Vote Canada and a number of academics and celebrity supporters. The No side, calling itself KNOW-STV included a few former politicians, backroom operatives from the Liberal and NDP parties, and two former members of the Citizen's Assembly (Pilon 2010: 78).

Remarkably, as Pilon elaborates (Pilon 2010: 78-79), none of the major parties came out formally in support of the proposed reforms. Even Green Party leader Adrienne Carr expressed a preference for a different version of proportional representation than STV, although many Green candidates ignored their leader and openly supported the Citizen's Assembly proposal. The NDP and its leader Carole James were also critical of the proposed STV model while refusing to make it a campaign issue. Even though the BC NDP had committed to adopt proportional representation in 1999, they claimed to prefer a different model and the party was deeply split on the issue in general. As for the Liberals, Premier Campbell remained neutral but as a party, the Liberals were largely opposed to electoral reform. Indeed, the government imposition of a supermajority requirement for the referendum to be binding was widely seen as a concession to members of the Liberal caucus opposed to reform. Voters seeking guidance from the parties on how to vote in the referendum were thus left without very much direction.

Voter polls and surveys
Voter polls and surveys conducted prior to the referendum dealt with the degree of voter awareness and knowledge about the referendum as well as voter intentions.

On the former subject, various surveys pointed to low levels of awareness that did not seem to improve significantly as the referendum approached. Pilon 2010: 77) cites the following results: As Pilon concludes, "the public seemed only vaguely aware of the referendum and poorly informed of what was at stake in making their decision" (ibid.).
 * a February 21, 2005, poll by Ipso-Reid (conducted in early February) showing that 50 percent of respondents were aware of the referendum but two-thirds of them claimed to know "very little" or "nothing" about BC-STV;
 * a Strategic Council poll in April 2005 finding that nearly half of respondents knew "nothing at all" about the proposal, while another 42 percent claimed to know "a little." Only 10 percent felt they knew "a lot" about it;
 * Angus Reid polling in the final weeks of the campaign (published April 30 and May 14), showing 64 percent to 66 percent of respondents still claiming they knew "nothing" or "very little" about the proposal.

Meanwhile, surveys on voter intentions such as the following showed rising support for the referendum over time, and some decline in the share of undecided voters.
 * Nordic Research Group April 28, 2005
 * Yes: 32 percent; no: 16 percent; undecided: 52 percent
 * Ipsos-Reid April 30, 2005
 * Yes: 42 percent; no: 38 percent
 * Ipsos-Reid May 14, 2005
 * Yes 47 percent; no: 35 percent; undecided: 13 percent; will not vote: 3 percent

By the time of the above Ipso-Reid survey results announced on the eve of the referendum, the referendum seemed destined to secure majority support and might even pass the 60 percent threshold. Much would depend on how voters would swing at the last moment on an important issue about which most of them felt ill-informed.

Results
The final result of the referendum was favourable to the proposed reform, which was supported by 57.7 percent of the electorate, vs. 42.3 percent voting against it. A majority of pro-reform votes was obtained in 77 out of 79 districts. The following table provides the details.

Although the proposal failed to meet the thresholds established for the reform to be binding, the result was very close. The threshold requiring majority support in at least 60 percent of districts was easily met, with 97 percent of districts satisfying this criterion, and the overall popular vote was just 2.3 percent shy of the threshold.

Analysis
The unexpectedly high popularity of the voting reform surprised many. Although polls conducted in April and May indicated more support for the proposal than against it, the number of undecided voters remained high, and there was an expectation that "a bewildered public would simply vote it down on election day" as can typically happen (Pilon 2010: 80). Yet despite this, the measure gained a 57.7 percent approval in the province on voting day.

That the public was poorly informed right up to the date of the referendum is certain. Post-referendum research and analysis pointed to the ineffectiveness of public education efforts, of the YES-STV and KNOW-STV campaigns, and of the media to act as "effective grassroots indicators" (Pilon 2010: 81). Meanwhile, the referendum campaign received limited media attention, as both major parties were officially neutral on the proposed change. Just days before the referendum, two thirds of British Columbians admitted to knowing "nothing/very little" about the proposed STV system (Pilon 2010: 77 and 79).

However they were strongly inclined towards proportionality, choice among multiple parties, and even coalition governments. Post-election analysis confirmed that most people knew little about the details of STV. Better informed voters did tend to vote in support of the proposal, but other supporters of the proposal seemed to rely on a positive appreciation and respect for the work of the Citizen's Assembly. Positive appreciation of the Citizen's Assembly thus appears to have been an important factor in the level of approval that was achieved, and the Assembly members played a role in this, by calling attention to the role of the Assembly in drafting the referendum question.

According to a post-referendum survey conducted by Nordic Research, over half of those who voted against STV said that they did so because they did not feel knowledgeable.

A remarkable feature of the BC 2005 referendum was the extent of voter support across party lines. In particular, the research showed Liberals, Greens and undecided voters quite supporting of STV, with well over 60 percent support among these groups, but support among Liberals was fairly high as well, at about 50 percent (Carty et al., op. cit.). As Pilon points out, the aftermath of the 1996 and 2001 elections had left many partisans of both the NDP and Liberal parties unsure about their parties future and open to proposals for reform and the moment was ripe for the referendum to secure support across party lines, despite the lack of support or even opposition from party leaders (Pilon 2010: 80)

Aftermath
There was some ambivalence on how to proceed following the referendum, considering the strong support that it had shown, while falling short of the threshold for it to be binding. The Liberal government, which had been reelected the day of the referendum, put off any comment on how it would respond until the fall of 2005. The public itself was quite divided; and some in the electoral reform community expressed concern that the Legislature might impose a "watered-down" or partisan-inspired system in lieu of the STV model.

The Liberals' response came in Premier Gordon Campbell's September 12 Speech from the Throne. The speech rejected the call for introducing STV immediately and rejected a re-opening of the process to consider other options. Instead, it announced a second referendum on the STV proposal, with some adjustments: this time, a provisional map of STV ridings would be prepared in advance, and public funds would be provided to both pro- and anti-STV groups "to support active information campaigns for supporters and detractors of each model." BC-STV would remain intact as the proposed alternative to FPTP and the 60 percent threshold would also remain in place.

The original intent in the Speech from the Throne was that the referendum would be rerun in conjunction with the B.C. municipal elections in November 2008 in time to be implemented in the next provincial election should it be approved. However, the Premier later issued a statement, on April 27, 2006, indicating that the date of the referendum would be postponed until May 2009 to coincide with the next provincial election. He explained that this was being done after consulting with Elections BC to reduce the cost of running the referendum while ensuring that there would be enough time to prepare for the next election should the referendum call for an STV model to be implemented.


text:
Talk:Scapegoating/Archive 1

Atheists
American atheists and agnostics sometimes face prejudice although Atheism and Agnosticism are not technically Crimes. There are moral problems in the United States, like casual sex, Alcohol and illegal Drug abuse and other crime. Atheists, to lesser extent agnostics are easy scapegoats. Examples of humanists leading moral lives are often ignored. United States Mass media mostly feature atheists who can be seen as immoral. Atheists are sometimes vilified and treated harshly. Some atheists may to see themselves in the Stereotype and lose confidence in their capacity to be moral. Others make a point of practicing moral humanism.

Where's the evidence that atheists and agnostics are scapegoated—by anyone other than Jerry Falwell and his ilk—for these "moral problems"? Also remember that not everyone thinks casual sex and alcohol/drug use are moral problems, and only drug use is always considered a crime —the others are only criminal in carefully delimited circumstances. —69.156.205.32 05:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Note: the above comment is related to the page history at Talk:Scapegoating/Old history. All the other comments on this page are related to the page history currently at the scapegoating article. Graham 87 03:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
"Overlords"? What does this mean, in the context of bullying in schools? Joyous 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Scapegoat vs. Fall Guy
As written the article equates scapegoat with fall guy. My understanding is that a scapegoat is actually innocent but has blame attached to them to distract blame from others, whereas a fall guy is a participant in the wrongdoing (is actually guilty) but is one among a number of wrongdoers, and is made to "take the fall" to protect their fellow wrongdoers. The following reference agrees, although its hard to call it authoritative: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/grammar/index.php?m=200703  I have not changed this for the moment, absent a more definitive reference. The mess of an article over at Fall Guy makes the same potential mistake.

 * As of today, the article at Fall guy seems much improved, and distinguishes several types of 'fall guy', only one of which overlaps with the meaning of 'scapegoat'. I agree that equating the term is potentially misleading, and besides it doesn't seem to add to this introduction section significantly. I've moved the reference down to the metaphor section, and introduce it as a 'related concept' rather than an equivalent term. Mooncow (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Scapegoating is usually done by...
Scapegoating in schools are usually done by bullies, people who like to force people to do things, and overlords.

Patsy
A patsy is a person who takes the fall for a crime. Lee Harvey Oswald is considered the best example.

I removed this text from the article in chief. I'm not sure what the first is going on about --- admittedly, my school had overlords, and mad scientists and henchmen as well, but my experience is not ordinary. The second strikes me as profoundly POV. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The internal link for Patsy links to a page about the shortened version of Patricia. The only page patsy 'as in scapegoat' appears is on the disambiguation page. This really shouldn't be linked, or else it should link to a new page IMO 78.16.251.237 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistranslation
Were there ever any scaegoats? Wasn't it just a western mistranslation of the hebrew text?
 * There were probably scapegoats, and the Hebrew text isn't mistranslated (as far as anybody knows, I believe). That said, it is unclear how much the ritual was actually practiced, but this is the case with a lot of "strange" ancient Israelite religious observances, such as the sabbatical and jubilee years and the injunction to stone your stubborn and rebellious child. Makaristos 06:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Frameup = scapegoating?
The assertion in the section "Scapegoating" that equates "scapegoating" with "frameup" is questionable and misleading. I suggest that this sentence should be removed. The two terms have distinct connotations. soverman 14:48 08 Oct 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree the terms have distinct connotations. Rather than remove it, I have described it as a 'related concept'. Mooncow (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
 Lev. 16:8-26; R.V., "the goat for Azazel" (q.v.), the name given to the goat which was taken away into the wilderness on the day of Atonement (16:20-22). The priest made atonement over the scapegoat, laying Israel's guilt upon it, and then sent it away, the goat bearing "upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." At a later period an evasion or modification of the law of Moses was introduced by the Jews. "The goat was conducted to a mountain named Tzuk, situated at a distance of ten Sabbath days' journey, or about six and a half English miles, from Jerusalem. At this place the Judean desert was supposed to commence; and the man in whose charge the goat was sent out, while setting him free, was instructed to push the unhappy beast down the slope of the mountain side, which was so steep as to insure the death of the goat, whose bones were broken by the fall. The reason of this barbarous custom was that on one occasion the scapegoat returned to Jerusalem after being set free, which was considered such an evil omen that its recurrence was prevented for the future by the death of the goat" (Twenty-one Years' Work in the Holy Land). This mountain is now called el-Muntar.  Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, Public Domain --JohnMajerus 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When did "scapegoating" acquire its meaning?
It seems to me that scapegoating - i.e. blaming somebody for something they did not do to illicitly divert attention from the wrongs of the scapegoater, has a different meaning than the biblical story: in the biblical story there is nothing illicit. Does anybody have any comment?
 * The connection seems clear to me. A scapegoat is blamed for particular evils, and in the ritual, the sins of the people are symbolically transferred to the scapegoat. It becomes, quite literally, the scapegoat. I don't know what you mean by "illicit". Can you clarify? Also, please consider getting a username to identify yourself, and sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ). Thank you. Makaristos 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Scapegoating in the common meaning is illicit, not symbolic. I think that is a significant difference.  Like borrowing and stealing.  But there are other differences as well:  in the biblical story the scapegoat is not a member of the group (it is a goat after all), the actor whose attention is being diverted is strictly speaking God, not the group, the scapegoat is not punished but set free.  It seems to me that at some point the meaning of the word was transferred and I am curious when and why that happened.  Perhaps there is another legend out there about a goat that is the real source of the "scapegoat" concept?
 * I still don't quite understand what you mean by "illicit". Scapegoating is not illegal, however bad it is. And you're right about all the points you make, but I still think the connection is quite clear: in each instance, you have the transference of blame onto a particular thing that obviously didn't do it. The scapegoat in the Bible is sent into the wilderness (or killed by being pushed into a ravine, or whatever--depends on your reading of the word Azazel), carrying the people's sins away from them. I don't see any reason to think that there's a temporal discrepancy between the "two" meanings of the words, because there's only one meaning, and the connection is clear and beyond reproach for me. Makaristos 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When I mention "illicit" I mean that in the biblical story it is said that the goat is a scapegoat. In "scapegoating" this is never uttered - in fact, that the victim is innocent is a big secret. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.29.139 (talk • contribs).
 * What? I don't understand. "It is said that the goat is a scapegoat"? But "In 'scapegoating' this is never uttered"? The goat itself certainly wasn't guilty of the sins of the people. I still don't understand what you're talking about. Pleast clarify. --Makaristos 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add a link to mobbing.ca
Mobbing is a form of scapegoating which takes place in the workplace. The scapegoated person is subjected to bullying and harassement in a concerted effort to eliminate them from the workplace. You can find more information at http://mobbing.ca

For your convenience here is the link you can add to "External links":
 * mobbing.ca (Mobbing resources in Canada)

Radyx 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have explained on your talk page, I do not think the website belongs on Wikipedia. Please check out External links for the guidelines. --Makaristos 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi User:Makaristos, thanks for your reply.
 * I had a look at External Links but wasn't really able to find anything there that would preclude inclusion of a link to mobbing.ca. Even item 4 under "Links normally to be avoided" does not apply.
 * "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming."
 * First mobbing.ca certainly does not "primarily exist to sell products or services". mobbing.ca had a great deal of content before there was any advertising whatsoever. Any advertising that has been added has been with the purpose of adding to the visual interest of the pages by providing links to products that relate directly to the subject at hand. Products which would be of interest to targets of scapegoating (mobbing). With over 40 pages of content, so far, the vast majority of the site is content - not advertising. So I do not believe it would be fair to say mobbing.ca contains "objectionable amounts of advertising". Further mobbing.ca does not "require payment to view the relevant content" of any of its pages whatsoever.

 * Content on mobbing.ca does contain a range of perspectives, some pages reflect opinions of those who have experienced scapegoating firsthand, most pages provide more objective information such as the health and legal information pages as well as many feature articles written by journalists and researchers. A site not being 100 percent nuetral is not a reason to preclude its inclusion as an external link in Wikipedia. If you searched hard enough I'm sure you could find a reason to disallow any site at all. There are far more reasons (as mentioned in previous post) to include mobbing.ca than the few technicalities which may be found to disallow it. mobbing.ca is completely relevant to the subject at hand and provides a depth of information currently not covered in the Wiki article. Let's not split hairs while overlooking overwhelming justification for inclusion of mobbing.ca. Please reconsider and add mobbing.ca to the external links.

 * For your convenience here is the link:
 * mobbing.ca (Mobbing resources in Canada)

 * Thanks for your help. Radyx 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Description of mobbing added to Political/sociological scapegoating
Mobbing is a form of sociological scapegoating which occurs in the workplace. In support of this I include a quote from At The Mercy Of The Mob A summary of research on workplace mobbing by Kenneth Westhues, Prof. of Sociology University of Waterloo, published in OHS Canada, Canada's Occupational Health & Safety Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 8, December 2002, pp. 30-36. I believe this expert opinion supports inclusion of mobbing in this section. I have also waited for a month for response to my request above. Since there has been none and it is obviously appropriate I will go ahead and add an external link to http://mobbing.ca.

Radyx 22:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I took away "I luv Joshua Whittle!" as it was obvious vandalism.

 * Unless Joshua Whittle concurrs I don't think you have a consensus. :-P Batvette (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush a Scapegoat?
I took out the statement claiming that Bush is a good example of a political scapegoat. If anything, Bush is receiving less criticism than he deserves for the decisions he has made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.119.108.85 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

 * Maybe your dislike for the man has you too blind to see the obvious? The desire to remove Saddam stretches way back to Clinton's administration, and the policy continues into the end of 2001 when a bipartisan group of congressmen issue a written demand to Bush that he act on the matter. By October 2002 the House and Senate pass the Iraq war bill, AKA AUMF on Iraq, which laid an unstoppable course to invade the country. Not a SINGLE new piece of intelligence came out of that country during Bush's tenure, the entire body of intel comes from Clinton's DCI Tenet- YET the media convinces everyone after the fact it was BUSH that made it all up and both houses of congress were his dupes- including senators and congressman who pick apart the CIA's budget for decades! Hillary Clinton too! So America invades an energy rich middle east country to keep its resources from falling into the hands of France, China, and Russia, and its ruler from further agression with our allies KSA and Kuwait- the prior we owe all our prosperity since 1973 to-and we get to use a whole country as a shooting gallery for Al Qaeda for years-  And EVERYONE, including the world and the american  people, ALL get to blame it on one guy who went back home to Texas and will likely rarely be heard from again- and you say he's not a scapegoat for the decisions HE made? WE invaded a country and WE'RE playing victims of BUSH! That's how well it worked. That guy didn't decide what he had for breakfast every day. Please. Batvette (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ritual exclusion from group or tribe
One anthropological parallel I see here is the concept of mingi. In similarity to the Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary text for scapegoat (above), the ritual exclusion could and did include, as I recall from an old documentary on PBS, more violent means leading to death, such as throwing a child designated as mingi into the river to drown, which would prevent the great discomfort of having to face the apparition of one who reappears after a period of time. As I recall, those who were forcibly separated from their tribe would, if they were able, shadow their tribe at a distance, though they would eventually succumb to starvation or predators in the jungle. JohnMajerus 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible Section Confusing
Someone made a complete mess of this section. While technically correct (AFAICT), it is so muddled that it makes it sound as if the biblical *existence* of the concept of the scapegoat is based on a mistranslation, when it is simply the *term* "scapegoat" which is a mistranslation. Someone needs to rewrite this as clearly as it is explained here: http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20040707.shtml 68.73.114.58 (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedophiles
Are scapegoats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.245.137 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reorganising
I intend to reorganize this to put much more emphasis on the metaphorical meaning of scapegoating. --Penbat (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The talk page could not be moved. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Scapegoat → Scapegoating — IMHO the current article is a very dull description mainly of the ancient historical origins of the word "scapegoat", although current day political and psychological aspects are touched upon towards the end. Scapegoating is an important concept quite closely associated to bullying, where the bully victim is often a scapegoat. A few years ago the bullying article used to be called "bully" before it was renamed. Similarly, it would make sense to rename "scapegoat" as "scapegoating" as "scapegoating" is the broader concept that incorporates "scapegoat". Also it should encourage editors to write about the broader modern day concept rather than just get bogged down with describing the word "scapegoat". I plan to develop this article myself in time. "Scapegoating" is a very common word these days and is an important social psychological construct. See for example the references to "scapegoating" in Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Scapegoating&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws I dont think this is controversial as I am simply askng for a variation of the original name.--Penbat (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose Unlike bully/bullying, a scapegoat derives from an actual goat. In my opinion, this article is very interesting as it is, and the current title doesn't impede the ability to expand it further. While "scapegoating" has been used by some behaviourists, the noun "scapegoat" remains more common in day-to-day use. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 36,800 references to scapegoating in the Google scholar link i gave, the vast majority of which relate to scapegoating in a behavioural sense and very few relate to scapegoating in a historical sense so your "While "scapegoating" has been used by some behavourists" point doesn't stack up. Obviously it is reasonable to cover the origin and history of scapegoats but currently it is disproportionate,.--Penbat (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * There are 63,100 hits for "scapegoat" on Google Scholar, much more than the 36,800 for "scapegoating". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bullying" has only about 40% of the hits on Google as "Bully" yet the "Bully" Wiki article was renamed as "Bullying" a few years ago. "Scapegoating" incorporates anything to do with "scapegoats" but in addition allows more scope to cover people who do the scapegoating (and the process in general)  as well as the scapegoats themselves.--Penbat (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Changed my mind on the basis of your arguments. Switching to support. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose Our convention, set out in the Naming Conventions, is to use the noun form, which would be Scapegoat. I suspect Bully was renamed to Bullying, against these conventions, because of the multiple uses of the word Bully, and the need for a disambiguating term.  That consideration does not apply to Scapegoat.  Skinsmoke (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Incidentally, the verb is also to scapegoat. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment doesnt make sense as in the case of bullying the verb is "to bully", but it wasnt the verb I was referring to but the general concept, "scapegoating" in the same way as "bullying".--Penbat (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Just looking at Naming_conventions it seems to me that "scapegoating" is equivalent to "democracy" and "swimming" (both of which are quoted as being valid according to Wikipedia naming conventions) while "scapegoat" is equivalent to "democrat" and "swimmer". "Democracy" and "swimming" (which relate to the broad concept rather than just an individual) are obviously much more sensible names for Wiki articles than "democrat" and "swimmer".--Penbat (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Looking at the Wikipedia naming conventions more carefully, it says "Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb will be the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming." So the verb is "to swim" and the gerund form is "swimming". With scapegoating the verb is "to scapegoat" and the gerund form is "scapegoating". So "scapegoating" is entirely valid according to the Wikipedia naming conventions which actually supports my case instead of yours.--Penbat (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Scapegoating/Archive 1


text: User talk:129.116.32.53

title: User talk:129.116.32.53


text: User talk:129.116.32.187

title: User talk:129.116.32.187


text:
Province of Tierra Firme

During Spain's New World Empire, its mainland coastal possessions surrounding the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico were referred to collectively as the Spanish Main. The southern portion of these coastal possessions were known as the Province of Tierra Firme (Provincia de Tierra Firme), or the "Mainland Province" (as contrasted with Spain's nearby insular colonies). The Province of Tierra Firme, or simply Tierra Firme, was also called Costa Firme.

History
In 1498, Cristopher Columbus entered the Gulf of Paria in Venezuela and explored the Orinoco River. In his fourth and last voyage, he also explored the Honduras. In 1509, authority was granted to Alonso de Ojeda and Diego de Nicuesa to colonize the territories between the west side of the Gulf of Urabá and Cabo de la Vela, and Urabá westward to Cabo Gracias a Dios in present-day Honduras. The westernmost portion was given the name Tierra Firme. Other provinces of this region during this era were Nueva Andalucia and Veragua or Castilla del Oro; the main city in Tierra Firme was Santa Maria La Antigua del Darién, now Darién, Panama, near the mouth of the Tarena river. The idea was to create a unitary administrative organization similar to Nueva España (now Mexico), near the Captaincy General of Guatemala.

Tierra Firme later received control over other territories: the Isla de Santiago (now Jamaica) the Cayman Islands; Roncador, Quitasueño, and Providencia and other islands now under Colombian control; and the territories of present-day Costa Rica and Nicaragua as far as Cabo Gracias a Dios. The eastern frontier of Tierra Firme also included the east side of the Gulf of Darién or Urabá, the east side of the Atrato and Truando rivers, ending in Cabo Marzo on the Pacific side. Between these limits lie Santa Maria La Antigua Del Darien on the Gulf of Urabá and Jurado on the Pacific side.

When the Central American states gained independence, the precise frontiers were unclear. For example, some ancient maps and historical references suggest that the entire Caribbean coast as far as Cabo Gracias a Dios was part Tierra Firme or Castilla Del Oro. On the other hand, this would embrace populated regions of the Mosquito Coast that were never under the effective rule of Tierra Firme. Disputes over both of Panama's frontiers were finally solved by agreements with Costa Rica and Colombia, respectively.

Governorates in Hispanic America
After the territorial division of South America between Spain and Portugal, the Peruvian Hispanic administration was divided into six entities:
 * Province of Tierra Firme, included the Caribbean Coast, Central America, the Pacific Coast of Colombia and Mexico.
 * Governorate of New Castile, consisting of the territories from roughly the Ecuadorian-Colombian border in the north to Cuzco in the south.
 * Governorate of New Toledo, forming the previous southern half of the Inca empire, stretching towards central Chile.
 * Governorate of New Andalusia, which was not formally conquered by Spain until decades later.
 * Governorate of New León, the southernmost part of the continent until the Strait of Magellan.
 * Governorate of Terra Australis, territories from the south of the Strait of Magellan to the South Pole.

This territorial division set the basis for the Hispanic administration of South America for several decades. It was formally dissolved in 1544, when King Charles I sent his personal envoy, Blasco Núñez Vela, to govern the newly founded Viceroyalty of Peru that replaced the governorates.

title: Province of Tierra Firme