text:
Talk:Red Ensign/Archive 1

 * 2+�;���scist comment==

I have cut the following from the article:

 * The Red Ensign is a cherished symbol, it was used from 1867-1964 AD. It is not a symbol of hate, in any fashion.  I strenuously object to the above reference, and question the motives of the individual who posted this "reference".

 * For a full account of the process that changed the usage of the Canadian Red Ensign (pre-1964 AD), to the Canadian Maple Leaf (post-1965 AD), please consult the following site,

 * "The Great Canadian Flag Debate"

 * http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-80/politics_economy/canada_flag/

 * The adoption of the present Maple Leaf Flag was highly controversial in 1964 AD, and still is 40 years later. Many people in Canada today (pre-domiantly in English-Canada), have never accepted the Maple Leaf Flag, and still consider (and use) the Canadian Red Ensign as their "Canadian Flag".

I have moved ArmchairVexillologistDon's addition to the talk page because it is improperly worded for the encyclopedia (especially the use of first-person pronouns). However, I do support ArmchairVexillologistDon's protest. We should delete the neo-fascist comment unless it can be supported with a citation or two. Indefatigable 00:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nov 27, 2004 AD

AndyL

I formally complain,... A SECOND TIME ABOUT THIS. I will not have the Canadian Red Ensign Slandered in this fashion WHO POSTED THESE FACIST CLAIMS? You did AndyL.

Paul Fromm Recently, he has tried to revive use of the Red Ensign flag and his political events and rallies usually have the old Canadian flag prominently displayed.

So what?

AndyL I'm not going to drop this. What is your obsession with linking the Canadian Red Ensign to a bunch of Facist nutbars?

ArmchairVexillologistDon

(cur) (last) 09:13, 21 Nov 2004 AndyL (Canada) (cur) (last) 09:12, 21 Nov 2004 AndyL (Canada)

In recent years many far-right and neo-Nazi groups in Canada, particularly those affiliated to Paul Fromm, have adopted the Canadian Red Ensign as a symbol of their movement meant to emphasise what they assert lis their adherence to traditional Canadian values.

TO SPEED THINGS UP, THIS WAS POSTED as well on RED ENSIGN page

AndyL

I don't like YOU CARELESSLY linking the Canadian Red Ensign to Facist Groups. This is the second time you've done this.

Based on what? This picture below?

AndyL, you call yourself an editor? Get a grip.

There is A Red Ensign on the podium. Correct? But which one? One can not see the Canadian Coat-of-Arms.

Next, if it was the Canadian Red Ensign,.... SO WHAT?

The Celtic Cross,

The Scottish Flag,

The Welsh Flag,

The Northern Irish Flag (with the Union Jack in the Canton),

and the present day CANADIAN MAPLE LEAF FLAG,

are ALL VISIBLE as well.

By your logic AndyL, they are all racist Flags. I, me-self, believe that YOUR LOGIC is RUBBISH.

Paul Fromm ******* Recently, he has tried to revive use of the Red Ensign flag and his   political  events and rallies usually have the old Canadian flag prominently  displayed. *******

So what?

AndyL I'm not going to drop this. What is your obsession with linking the Canadian Red Ensign to a bunch of    Facist nutbars?

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Don, perhaps you should complain to Paul Fromm and ask his organization to stop using the red ensign as a symbol. I agree, their use of the red ensign is odious but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you are correct in denying this fact.

See references at ,

See also this picture from a rally for Ernst Zundel held earlier this year. AndyL 04:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also see this. AndyL 04:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal

 * There is A Red Ensign on the podium. Correct? But which one? One can not see the Canadian Coat-of-Arms.

 * Next, if it was the Canadian Red Ensign,.... SO WHAT?

 * The Celtic Cross,

 * The Scottish Flag,

 * The Welsh Flag,

 * The Northern Irish Flag (with the Union Jack in the Canton),

 * and the present day CANADIAN MAPLE LEAF FLAG,

Don., this is a straw man argument. No where have I cited the photograph of Fromm at the podium as evidence regarding the red ensign. Rather, it is in the Paul Fromm article because it was taken at a "friends of the British National Party" meeting as well as because of the neo-nazi flag on the extreme left side of the photo. It's fallacious reasoning for you to choose a photograph and present it as if it was my evidence in the red ensign argument and then point out the inadequacies of the evidence when I never used that picture as evidence regarding the red ensign. Indeed, I didn't even notice the red ensign in the picture until you pointed it out. AndyL 05:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebutal-of-Rebutal
Dec 11, 2004 AD,

AndyL,

I have deleted your reference to the Canadian Red Ensign and the "Zundel People". I shall keep doing so.

EVERYDAY.... If I have to. FOREVER.

Next up,

You can "expect" nothing.

Some "wing-dings" have put up the Red Ensign at this idiots rally once in a while,.... SO WHAT?

That does NOT make the Red Ensign theirs.

Why do you try so hard to link the Red Ensign to this bunch of nut-bags,...?

The Red Ensign is a cherished symbol of Canada.

I'm trying to protect it from getting slandered by reckless people like you.

So AndyL,... why do you keep going to the effort of linking the Red Ensign to "Zundel-people"?

Why make such a big effort to link such insignificant "sightings of the Red Ensign" at Zundel rallies? http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/aug10_rally.html

Well?

Eh?

Why?

Canadian Maple Leaf Flag at Zundel Rally http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/battles/zundel_july04/images/0031.JPG

Austrian Flags at Zundel Rallies

http://zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/free_zundel_rally_nov23.html

'''Austria: Index of All Pages Österreich'''

http://flagspot.net/flags/at-index.html#land

Austrian (Austro-Hungarian), and German Flags are the most varied in the World. If you KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT FLAGS (which you obviously do not) you would know that some block-head waving a Flag does NOT make it theirs.

I am prepared to continue this "debate/deleting" of the Red Ensign racist-group linking, AD-NAUSEIUM, AD-INFINITUM.

ArmChairVexillologistDon

 * "I am prepared to continue this "debate/deleting" of the Red Ensign racist-group linking, AD-NAUSEIUM, AD-INFINITUM."

That sort of behaviour is not acceptable on wikipedia and would lead to you being banned. Just because you don't like a fact does not give you the licence to erase it. Sorry. That you also find other flags at Zundel rallies does not change the fact that Paul Fromm's organizations have adopted the red ensign as their symbol, sell the red ensign, promote it in their literature as the "real" flag of Canada etc.  AndyL 07:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,

Get "the boss" in here then,

We need "a third party" to decide this,

Until this "third-party" shows up,... I shall keep deleting your "unproven Red Ensign Facist link.

ArmChairVexillologistDon

 * Okay. It's "fascist," and I can't say I appreciate you folks conducting your arguments all over my user talk page. Threats to continue reverting things until you get your way, regardless of discussion, are equally inappropriate.
 * Now that that's done with, I have to agree with AndyL. Saying that Ernst Zundel and his ilk have an especial fondness for the Red Ensign for particular unsavoury reasons does not mean that the Red Ensign was a fascist flag, or anything of that variety. I don't pretend to speak for the truthfulness of the matter, but if it's a fact, it's a fact, and seems worthy of record. That's how it works.
 * If you don't like the fact that the noble red ensign is being dragged through the mud by its unfortunate association with fascism, take it up with Ernst; don't shoot the messenger. - Montréalais 07:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Montrealis, just for the record, I haven't posted anything on your talk page. Don saw fit to cut and paste the exchange from this page onto your page for reasons known only to him. AndyL 07:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neo-nazi POV

 * The following discussion was begun on personal talk pages but is better suited to the article pages.

Why do you say the usage of the red ensign by neo-nazi groups is "irrelevent"? AndyL 14:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The comments about the neo-nazi groups are about them, not about the red ensign. It doesn't say anything about a flag to show how it has been misused by fringe groups.  Eclecticology 14:45, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

So then the fact that the confederate flag was revived in the 1960s by various white supremacist groups in the south shouldn't be mentioned in an article on the confederate flag? The usage of flags is certainly germane to articles about a flag.. Should it necessarily be the main point of the article? No. But to avoid any mention at all would be negligent. The point is the Candian red ensign fell into disuse in the 1960s and has been rarely seen until then. Very few people fly it today. By far the largest group that does use the flag is neo-nazis who have adopted it as their Canadian symbol in oppoisition to the "multiculturalist" maple leaf. There is no reason not to mention that in passing in an article on the red ensign. It is certainly relevent. The fact that this is embarassing to the few other red ensign supporters in the country, those who are not neo-nazis, is not a good reason for non-inclusion. Our point in writing articles is not to "protect" the reputation of the topic (in this case the red ensign), to exclude material for that reason is POV. AndyL 15:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have not looked into the debate on the Confederate flag, and don't intend to. It is also the state flag for Alabama, and I would not be surprised if many people there would object to such a use.

 * Neither do I know the statistics about how few people fly the red ensign, or how many neo-nazis use it. Perhaps you might enlighten us with properly sourced statistical information to avoid the accusation that you are just making this up.  The red ensign stopped being the official Canadian flag in the 1960s, but that does not translate into "falling into disuse" I'm sure that many pre 1960s veterans, particularly those who fought against Germany would find such a use of that ensign to be offensive.  Your attitude trivializes the views of those who still recognize the historical importance of the red ensign.  The issue is not simply a matter of embarassment or protecting reputations; it is about the appropriation of ideas and symbols for purposes contrary to their original intention.  I am sure that if I took time to research the matter I could find countless examples of various symbols being misused, but none of that would reflect on the original purpose of that symbol.  But such uses are stories about those who adopt the symbols, rather than about what the symbols themselves.  The most that would be tolerable on this point would be a line that says, "For information on the usurpation of the red ensign by neo-nazis see  ... ."  (You fill in the name of the article.)  Anything more is POV pushing by innuendo.

 * If anywhere there is to be information about the adoption of the red ensign by neo-nazis there should be stronger evidence to attest this than a group picture where the flag appears as one of many. What are the details of the resolution (within the context of their own internal policies and procedures) adopting the red ensign as the official neo-nazi flag?  Have there been attempts to obtain trademark protection for this usage?  What crest have they added to the ensign?  Would it not be more informative to show a picture of the neo-nazi version where their crest is clearly shown, and not just a group shot? Eclecticology 17:10, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Thank for lifting the Ban
Hello AndyL,

Thank you (and Montrealais, I assume) for lifing my ban. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Red Ensign being linked to Facist groups. I thank you for the opportunity.

Sincerely,

ArmChairVexillologistDon

The Grand Union Flag (1775-1777 AD) was derived from British East India Flag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States

 * This is not relevant.AndyL 22:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Canadian Red Ensign versus the Canadian Maple Leaf Design
The Canadian Red Ensign was used as the Flag of Canada from 1867 AD, to 1964 AD. Later in early 1965 AD, the Canadian Maple Leaf was adopted. It is public knowledge that its adoption was controversal. 'The Great Canadian Flag Debate

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-80/politics_economy/canada_flag/

(please review the videos, they are precious records of this indeed).

For a "snap-shot of Feb 1965 AD", please click on, Clip Number 6: Canadians differ on flag, closure'

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-80-302/politics_economy/canada_flag/clip6

The Canadian Red Ensign is a British Navy Jack.

http://flagspot.net/images/g/gb~rens.gif

The Canadian Maple Leaf is a French-Republican Tri-colour.

http://flagspot.net/images/f/fr.gif

(more to come).

ArmChairVexillologistDon

 * I'm not sure what you mean by posting all this; I just note that if that's what you believe, then the Maple Leaf must be the first tricolour in history with two colours. - Montréalais

 * Don, can you please try not to post material that is of no relevance to the question of including a reference to neo-nazi use of the Canadian red ensign? Simply posting any link you can find on the red ensign does not an argument make. AndyL 22:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can find several flags flown at Canadian neo-nazi rallies, however, Paul Fromm has been quite determined in promoting the use of the red ensign as the flag of his movement. See, for example, A plethora of Red Ensigns --OUR flag Also see this page with the red ensign being used as the backdrop at Fromm's "Atternative Forums" as well as a picture subtitled "Speaking. That's my Red Ensign lapel pin on my left lapel". The statement in the article isn't based on the mere fact that red ensigns "just happen" to be at a Zundel rally, it is based on the campaign of the neo-nazi movement in Canada, led by Fromm, to revive use of the red ensign. The "Freedom Site" operated by Heritage Front leader Marc Lemire is Canada's pre-eminent neo-nazi web service. On it, at this page you can find for sale an audio tape titled "The Meaning and History of the Red Ensign, Canada's Real Flag.". In London Ontario, Fromm's group marched last year in a parade of red ensign flags, "With our large Red Ensigns snapping against the deep blue sky, were certainly created a stirring sight." writes Fromm. One of Fromm's sites has this page with the article The Red Ensign - Our Flag. So yes, while one may also find Austrian and other flags at Zundel rallies you also find a large number of red ensigns. Why? Because the far right movement in Canada, led by Paul Fromm, has instituted a campaign to revive use of the flag. I'm not saying this should be the focus of the article but there is absolutely no reason not to mention it. I see no reason to exclude this fact from the article. The desire to protect the reputation of the red ensign by excluding this fact is, frankly, POV. AndyL 21:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the suggestion "The most that would be tolerable on this point would be a line that says, "For information on the usurpation of the red ensign by neo-nazis see ... ." " first of all "usurption" is a pov word, secondly, if there was enough material to justify an independent article having a link would be fine. As there is not sufficient material the standard practice at wikipedia would be to include what material exists in the relevant articles which is what I have done. Including the material is not POV, it is a statement of fact, removing it because you wish it were not true or because you think it reflects badly on the red ensign is POV. Certainly we can qualify the reference in the article by saying that not all supporters of the red ensign are neo-nazis and that many red ensign supporters deplore the adoption of the flag by neo-nazis but to remove the reference altogether is not appropriate. AndyL 21:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of the flag being used by fascists, but Andy has presented good evidence to that effect and this topic deserves to be in the article. - SimonP 22:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rebutal to Montrealais over Canadian Maple Flag "First Bicolour"
_____
 * I'm not sure what you mean by posting all this; I just note that if that's what you believe, then the Maple Leaf must be the first tricolour in history with two colours. - Montréalais

______

Montrealais,

Please review, French Republican Tri-colour (Blue-White-Red)

http://flagspot.net/flags/fr.html

http://flagspot.net/images/f/fr.gif

Peru Flag (Red-White-Red) Tri-colour

http://flagspot.net/flags/pe.html

http://flagspot.net/images/p/pe.gif

Canadian Maple Leaf (Red-White-Red) Tri-colour

http://flagspot.net/flags/ca.html

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca.gif

A tri-colour Flag is composed of THREE REGIONS (not necessarily three colours).

A bi-colour is similarly composed of TWO REGIONS.

Vertical Regions' (up-and-down) are called Pales.

e.g., Early Quebec St. Jean Bapstiste Flag (ca. 1840) http://flagspot.net/flags/ca-qcsjb.html

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-qc{j2.gif

(a vertical bi-colour, with Green-White Pales)

Franco-Ontarien Flag (1975 AD)

http://flagspot.net/flags/ca-on.html#Ontarois

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-f-ont.gif

(a vertical bi-colour, with Green-White Pales, with a White Jean d'Arc Fleur-de-lis, and a Green Trilium, blazoned on the left and right Pales, respeectively).

Horizontal Regions' (left-to-right) are called Fesses.

The first Revolutionary Tri-colour was used by Protestant (Lutheran) Dutch, who declared the Independence of the Republic of the United Provinces of the Netherlands in 1582 AD.  The Dutch War of Independence (1581-1648 AD) resulted in the Spanish Netherlands breaking away from Spain.

Their Revolutionary Republican Tri-colour was known as the Prinsevlag,

http://flagspot.net/images/n/nl-princ.gif

 * Don, 1) please sign your posts. You can do this by typing

~ at the end of yoru contribution 2) please try not to include so much white space in your posts since this results in your contributions taking up a lot of space while having minimal content. Please try to write in paragraphs. 3) please stay on topic. Your response above is completely immaterial to the question of including a reference to the use of the Canadian Red Ensign by fascist groups. Montrealis was making an aside that your previous post was irrelevent and you respond by taking up his aside! Please stay with the program. AndyL 23:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,... I am following the rules. You can not dictate my content
AndyL,

'''Would you like Jimmy ("Jimbo" ) Wales to review this disagreement as well?

Eh?'''

"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com

How about you e-mail him, from him to see how you could be harrassing me?

ArmChairVexillolgistDon

Don, do you actually have any argument for why the reference to fascists groups should not be included under the Canadian section of the red ensign article? You have said you will revert "ad infinitum" but you have failed to respond to my statements above. The only conclusion I can draw from your inability to put forth an argument is that you have no argument and therefore have no justification for reverting the article in the future. If you have an argument then make it instead of trying to change the topic to an irrelevent discussion of whether or not the Canadian maple leaf flag is a tricolour. This is not Talk:Maple Leaf flag so that question is of no interest here. As to whether you should start harassing Jimbo I don't think that's in your interest but I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. As to my advice regarding white space, signing your posts and staying on topic I put to you that following my advice would help you but if you want to continue to harm your cause by making incomprehensible posts then that's your business. AndyL 23:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,... you have muddled-up this issue,... I'm straighting it out
I am getting to the point.

I have to make some factual statements first.

To counteract "your claim to the contrary".

I am on temporary probation for VANDALISM.

If you want me to present my views,... then don't harrass me.

Deal?

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Point-by-Point review of AndyL's "obervations"
Don, do you actually have any argument for why the reference to fascists groups should not be included under the Canadian section of the red ensign article?

'''The Canadian Red Ensign (1867-1964 AD) preceeded the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag (post-1965 AD). That makes the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag directly relevent.'''

You have said you will revert "ad infinitum" but you have failed to respond to my statements above. The only conclusion I can draw from your inability to put forth an argument is that you have no argument and therefore have no justification for reverting the article in the future.

You are jumping to conclusions, before hearing all the facts.'

If you have an argument then make it instead of trying to change the topic to an irrelevent discussion of whether or not the Canadian maple leaf flag is a tricolour. This is not Talk:Maple Leaf flag so that question is of no interest here.

'''The Canadian Maple Leaf is of a French design (i.e., French Republican Tri-colour). It is at complete odds with the past British Navy Jacks of Canada. This Flag was never fully accepted by Canadians. Some accepted it, some still use the old Canadian Red Ensign. I happen to still use the Canadian Red Ensign.'''

As to whether you should start harassing Jimbo I don't think that's in your interest but I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. As to my advice regarding white space, signing your posts and staying on topic I put to you that following my advice would help you but if you want to continue to harm your cause by making incomprehensible posts then that's your business. AndyL 23:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''I shan't e-mail Jim ("Jimbo") Wales to harrass him. He has betters things to do than to settle "our petty-spat". However, Jim would be very interesting in Wikipedia will-fully publishing extreme, and biased views (i.e., borderline propaganda). If I'm summarily banned/harrased as I'm trying to have my case heard hear,.... I shall go up the chain-of-command, all the way to "Jimbo" if I have to complain about you. Yes indeed.'''

'''Just so we understand eachother, Andy.

ArmchairVexillologistDon'''

 * Don, as much as I may agree with you on the principle points about the article, Andy's points about signing posts and leaving white space are well taken. Following these conventions are for the benefit of the entire community in that they are very helpful to all interested parties who attempt to follow a debate.  It has certainly been my experience after nearly three years on Wikipedia that even bitter enemies in a wide range of debates will both follow this practice.

 * I have reviewed the Paul Fromm links given by Andy, and as much as I hate the idea of defending or even seeming to defend the neo-nazis I do not find that they are making any claim that the red ensign is an emblem of the neo-nazis or anything similar. The title "A plethora of Red Ensigns - OUR Flag" does nothing more than take the advocacy position that the Red Ensign should again become Canada's flag.  It's probably safe to assume that, like it or not, Fromm and many of his followers are Canadian citizen.  As such it's perfectly acceptable for them to take that position.  Such claims are common with people who appeal to patriotic traditions.  It is a gross misreading to interpret the word "our" in that context as referring to the neo-nazi movement.  Eclecticology 00:37, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

The point is, eclecticology, that there are few organized groups in Canada that advocate use of the Canadian red ensign. In fact, the only ones I know of are associated with Fromm or other neo-nazi groups. That means it is relevant to state in the article that among those who advocate a return to the Canadian red ensign are far-right neo-nazi groups. Indeed, unless someone can point out other groups that advocate a return to the old Canadian Red Ensign, it would even be fair to state that the *only* organized groups in Canada today that advocate a return to the Canadian red ensign are far right or neo-Nazi groups.AndyL 01:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Direct Rebutal of AndyL's claimed Facist links to Red Ensign
One of Fromm's sites has this page with the article The Red Ensign - Our Flag. So yes, while one may also find Austrian and other flags at Zundel rallies you also find a large number of red ensigns. Why? Because the far right movement in Canada, led by Paul Fromm, has instituted a campaign to revive use of the flag. I'm not saying this should be the focus of the article but there is absolutely no reason not to mention it. I see no reason to exclude this fact from the article. The desire to protect the reputation of the red ensign by excluding this fact is, frankly, POV. AndyL 21:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''First of all, Canada is not a Nation of Flag wavers. I don't know why, but we just don't seem to wave Flags as much as our American Bretheren do. You contend that the usage of the Canadian Red Ensign has dropped very low,... well how would you actually know that? And if it has so what. I for one do not use the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag. I do not feel that it represents Canada in a balanced fashion. My Flag of Canada was always the old Canadian Red Ensign.'''

Next up, here is Paul Fromms website The Red Ensign - Our Flag.

'''It says OUR FLAG. Whose Flag? Canada's real Flag. Just what is RACIST about that,...? Absolutely nothing. In fact it is just a TRADITIONAL point-of-view, on that adheres strongly to Canada's past. Nothing more, nothing less.'''

'''In fact,... upon reading Paul Fromms website, can you find me ONE THING that is RACIST about it?'''

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Paul Fromm is a Canadian neo-Nazi. His group advocates the use of the Canadian red ensign. The fact that the article in which they make their argument is not explicitly does not change the nature of Fromm or his organization. AndyL 01:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eclecticology: The Aryan Nations use the USA Flag, should Wikipedia reference that?
It is a gross misreading to interpret the word "our" in that context as referring to the neo-nazi movement. Eclecticology 00:37, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

'''AndyL contends that the Facist groups in Canada are using the Red Ensign as their symbol, in an attempt to revive its usage. I say so what,...? Why is that note-worthy in the least,...?'''

The Aryan Nations use the present Flag of the USA (please look below),

http://images.google.com/images?q=naziandoldglory.jpg&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi

Should Wikipedia link the present day USA Flag to Facist groups? Well?

'''Additionally, whilst we are at it, the KLU-KLUX-KLAN regularly used the USA FLAG in parades in its hayday of the 1920-30s, should we link the USA Flag to todays KKK,...? They most likely still use the USA FLAG.''' http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc2003/01100212.jpg

'''What about the CHRISTIAN CROSS. KKK people's "hall-mark" is the burning a CHRISTIAN CROSS. Should Wikipedia OVERTLY LINK the Christian Cross to KKK block-heads,...?''' Well,...? http://members.internettrash.com/wom/kkk.jpg

Sincerely, ArmchairVexillologistDon

 * Again, you're using faulty logic, the US flag is the official flag of the US thus most Americans use it in order to demonstrate their patriotism etc so the fact that the US Aryan Nations use it is not notable given the flag's widespread use. The Canadian Red Ensign has not been Canada's official flag for forty years, and use of it is highly limited - there are very few organised groups who fly it, in fact, the only organised group I know of that does wave it are Fromm's groups as well as the Canadian Heritage Alliance (a neo-Nazi group based in London) and the Northern Hammerskins (a Canadian skinhead group). Indeed, I'd be interested if anyone can point out examples of non-racists and non-neo nazi groups in Canada using the Canadian red ensign in the twenty first century. The only examples I am aware of of the flag being waved in the past four years are by far right/neo-nazi groups. Given the highly limited use of the Canadian Red Ensign today it is signficant to note that its use is being advocated by far right/neo-nazi groups since there are few, if any, others who still use that banner. Don, I challenge you to give me examples of non-fascist, non-far right groups waving the Candian red ensign (as opposed to the Ontario or Manitoba red ensigns) in the last four years. As for the cross, any article on cross burning would, of course, mention KKK association and indeed the article does so so you've actually helped make my point with that example - thank you.AndyL 01:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW Don, it's considered poor manners in wikipedia to alter or add headings to other people's posts. Please don't do that again. Also you don't have to put every post you make under a new heading, that actually makes it harder to follow the discussion. AndyL 01:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: "Our Flag" Website says nothing Racist
Paul Fromm is a Canadian neo-Nazi. His group advocates the use of the Canadian red ensign. The fact that the article in which they make their argument is not explicitly does not change the nature of Fromm or his organization. AndyL 01:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''Yes, Paul Fromm is a Canadian Neo-Nazi. But, so what? The "Our Flag" website does NOT make one Nazi/Facist statement. Not one iota. Just because the guy wrote the website, does not make WHAT WAS WRITTEN THERE UNTRUE, nor Racist for that matter.'''

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Thanks for acknowledging that Fromm is a neo-Nazi. The point is it is relevant to point out in the article that the most visible groups today advocating the use of the Canadian Red Ensign are neo-Nazi groups. AndyL 01:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: You are not the sole Judge of what is "Faulty-Logic"
Again, you're using faulty logic, the US flag is the official flag of the US thus most Americans use it in order to demonstrate their patriotism etc so the fact that the US Aryan Nations use it is not notable given the flag's widespread use.

The Canadian Red Ensign has not been Canada's official flag for forty years, and use of it is highly limited - there are very few organised groups who fly it, in fact, the only organised group I know of that does wave it are Fromm's groups as well as the Canadian Heritage Alliance (a neo-Nazi group based in London) and the Northern Hammerskins (a Canadian skinhead group). Indeed, I'd be interested if anyone can point out examples of non-racists and non-neo nazi groups in Canada using the Canadian red ensign in the twenty first century. The only examples I am aware of of the flag being waved in the past four years are by far right/neo-nazi groups. Given the highly limited use of the Canadian Red Ensign today it is signficant to note that its use is being advocated by far right/neo-nazi groups since there are few, if any, others who still use that banner. Don, I challenge you to give me examples of non-fascist, non-far right groups waving the Candian red ensign (as opposed to the Ontario or Manitoba red ensigns) in the last four years. As for the cross, any article on cross burning would, of course, mention KKK association and indeed the article does so so you've actually helped make my point with that example - thank you.AndyL 01:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don replied:

'''What does widespread use have to do with anything,...? Nothing. You are expressing the opinion that the USA FLAG should not be LINKED to the ARYAN NATION Facists groups because it not important. That is your opinion. My opinion is that the same "curtosy" should be afforded the CANADIAN RED ENSIGN.'''
 * Don, please do not put your comments in the middle of other people's comments, that's not considered acceptable on wikipedia since a) it's rude and interrupts the flow of an argument. This page is not a two person dialogue but is meant for the community as a whole. b) it makes it difficult to follow who is saying what. Please put your comments following someone else's comments. You can copy and paste a quotation that you are replying to but do not cut up someone else's original post. Also, please try not to use so much bolding. AndyL 01:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: Paul Fromm embracing the Red Ensign is not relavent
Thanks for acknowledging that Fromm is a neo-Nazi. The point is it is relevant to point out in the article that the most visible groups today advocating the use of the Canadian Red Ensign are neo-Nazi groups. AndyL 01:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''Paul Fromm is a Neo-Nazi. Sure thing. I have never said otherwise. My contension is that there is NO RELAVENCE in NOTING THIS.'''

If you note this, than why not link the USA FLAG to ARYAN NATION Facist,...?

ArmchairVexillologistDon

How could identifying those groups existing today (2004) that advocate a return to the Canadian Red Ensign not be relevant? AndyL 01:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: The Royal Canadian Legion still uses the Canadian Red Ensign
Don

How could identifying those groups existing today (2004) that advocate a return to the Canadian Red Ensign not be relevant? AndyL 01:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Legion using the Canadian Red Ensign http://www.army.dnd.ca/RCR_RHQ/Images/Whats_New_8_Oct_2003/legionweek.jpg

'''The Royal Canadian Legion still uses the Canadian Red Ensign, I have been Legions, and they use them, PROUDLY DISPLAYED. Offically or not.'''

'''What you are implying by associating the Red Ensign Facists groups, is that it would be a Facist thing to want the Red Ensign re-instated. You may not be saying that directly, but you most certainly are implying it.'''

'''I say this,... there is NOTHING FACIST about the Red Ensign. There is NOTHING FACIST ABOUT re-instating the Red Ensign. In fact, I would support the re-instatement of the Canadian Red Ensign as Canada's Flag.'''

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Is it the official position of the Royal Canadian Legion that the Canadian Maple Leaf be replaced as Canada's national flag by the Canadian Red Ensign?AndyL 01:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: Is Replacing the Maple Leaf with the Red Ensign a Facist idea?
Is it the official position of the Royal Canadian Legion that the Canadian Maple Leaf be replaced as Canada's national flag by the Canadian Red Ensign?AndyL 01:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''No. The Royal Canadian Legion has no offical position in that regard. The Royal Canadian Legion is the most highly respected Canadian Organisation that holds the Red Ensign in very high regard, and views it as a cherished symbol of Canada. Please review the 1960s clip on the Legion's reponse to Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson wanted to get rid of the Red Ensign.'''

Clip 2: Legionnaires boo Pearson over flag

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-80-297/politics_economy/canada_flag/clip2

On a stage with Royal Canadian Legionnaires standing at attention and holding Red Ensigns, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson steps up to a microphone. He's speaking to a convention of 2,000 at a Winnipeg Legion who invited him to talk about his proposed national flag. Pearson tells the crowd the Red Ensign will no longer serve the needs of Canadians. The crowd boos and heckles the prime minister.

AndyL do you think the Red Ensign is a Facist Flag?

AndyL do you think the re-instatement of the Red Ensign as Canada's Flag is a Facist idea?

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Your questions are irrelevent. I am not proposing that the article state that the red ensign is a fascist flag, I am simply stating that the article should make note of the *fact* that the Canadian Red Ensign has been increasingly used by Canadian neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups in recent years and that these groups are arguing that the Canadian Red Ensign should be restored as Canada's national flag. AndyL 08:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: I formally request a THIRD-PARTY DECISION on deleting your Facist Links
I formally request a THIRD-PARTY DECISION on deleting your Facist Links to the Canadian Red Ensign.

ArmchairVexillologistDon

Don wrote: "No. The Royal Canadian Legion has no offical position in that regard. The Royal Canadian Legion is the most highly respected Canadian Organisation that holds the Red Ensign in very high regard, and views it as a cherished symbol of Canada."

So then, the only organisations which call for the return of the Canadian Red Ensign as the national flag are neo-nazi and fascist groups. Why should that not be mentioned in the article? AndyL 08:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: Ordinary Canadian Individuals Love the Red Ensign
AndyL,

One does not need an "Organisation" to have patriotism and love of a Flag. Canada is not a society of Flag-wavers, we are more reserved about such things. We tend to talk more about these things in private. Just because you have found 2 Neo-Nazi groups who have embraced the old Canadian Red Ensign, does not give them the "majority stake" in this cherish Canadian symbol.

I put it to you that your reasoning is very biased, in the extreme. You wish to paint the Red Ensign as a "dead Flag" that only "Neo-Nazis" care about. This is not the case. Their are alot of ordinary Canadians (more than you know) that still consider the Red Ensign "Canadas Flag".

I openly request, a THIRD-PARTY DECISION, on the editing and/or complete removal of your Facist link to the Canadian Red Ensign.

ArmChairVexillologistDon

Don, please don't make insinuations about me I'm just interested in facts so just answer the question: What organizations, besides those associated with Paul Fromm, advocate the readoption of the Canadian Red Ensign as the national flag?AndyL 16:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation request
Don, I've put in a request at Requests for mediation. If you agree to mediation then go to that page and add a comment under my request (don't make a new heading) stating that you agree to mediation. Please sign your post properly, ie with four squiggle marks ~ in order to make it easier for the mediator to contact you and refrain from your habit of bolding everything you say as if you're more important than everyone else. AndyL 17:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello AndyL,

I thank you very much for placing the mediation request. I will abide by the decision of the arbitar.

ArmChairVexilllologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 17:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More on modern Canadian red ensign usage
See this blog entry Red Ensign: Flag of Cranks. The following far-right nativist and neo-nazi groups now advocate the adoption of the red ensign and Canada's national flag: These groups are in addition to the aforementioned Canadian Heritage Alliance (neo-Nazi group), Canada First Immigration Committee/Canadians for Foreign Aid Reform/Canadian Association for Free Expression (Paul Fromm) and the Northern Alliance (neo-Nazi). AndyL 18:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Autonomous Citizens of Canada - Niagara a "European heritage" anti-multiculturalism group.
 * Canadian Confederate Friendship Society a white supremacist outfit

See also Red Ensign: Flag of Hate and this interview carried on the white supremacist webcast American Dissident Voices hosted by Kevin Strom of the National Alliance. AndyL

AndyL,

The Canadian Red Ensign is not a Flag of Hate.

Red Ensign: Flag of Hate

this blog entry Red Ensign: Flag of Cranks.

Autonomous Citizens of Canada - Niagara

The 'Red Ensign: Flag of Hate website is "very questionable". These fringe websites are one thing. They are TINY and have NO CREDITABILITY. However '''Wikipedia is NOT a fringe website. Wikipedia is has a WORLDWIDE PROFILE, and a large CREDITABILE FOLLOWING.'''  That is the reason I am advocating the editing and/or deletion of your "questionable linkage".

ArmChairVexilloloigistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 21:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don, that's your POV and POV has no place here. We deal with facts and the fact is that neo-nazi groups in Canada are promoting use of the Candian Red Ensign and its reinstatement as the national flag. You have failed to provide any reason why this should not be mentioned in the article particularly as you have failed to name any non-fascist groups that advocate the readoption of the Canadian Red Ensign as the state's official flag. AndyL 21:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL: You have NO monopoly on Point-of-View
AndyL writes, Don, that's your POV and POV has no place here.

'''Oh really? So YOUR POV AndyL, is the ONLY POV that is acceptable on Wikipedia,...?'''

We deal with facts and the fact is that neo-nazi groups in Canada are promoting use of the Candian Red Ensign and its reinstatement as the national flag.

'''I beg to differ. Wikipedia deals with RELAVENT FACTS, RELIABLE FACTS, and IMPORTANT FACTS. I contend that the linking of the old Canadian Red Ensign to these Neo-Nazi/Facist "people" is a trival, pointless, and UN-NEWS WORTHY observation, for an on-line Encyclopedia.'''

You have failed to provide any reason why this should not be mentioned in the article particularly as you have failed to name any non-fascist groups that advocate the readoption of the Canadian Red Ensign as the state's official flag. AndyL 21:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''I beg to differ, again. My opinion it that YOU HAVE FAILED to justify the linking of these Facist groups to the old Canadian Red Ensign. They are a bunch of cranks out to get attention, anyway they can. You AndyL are actually ADVOCATING GIVING THEM the very attention, that they desire. If the old Canadian Red Ensign was for instance re-adopted as Canada's National Flag, that would not signal the arrival of the Right-Wing Facist Utopia, that these nutters appear to want. In fact, if the Old Red Ensign was re-adopted as Canada's National Flag, this country would still be the free, tolerant, and independent Nation-State, that Canada is today. Additionally, my heart would be glad to see my cherished Red Ensign back flying over Canada's Parliament Buildings, where I personally feel it belongs.'''

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 21:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArmChairVexillologistDon reads Wikepedia Mediation Procedure
AndyL,

I have just read the Mediation procedure, linked below,

Mediation Procedure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation

To quote...

Mediation is a process of alternative dispute resolution in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them negotiate an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest; lato sensu is any activity in which an agreement on whatever matter is researched by an impartial third party, usually a professional, in the common interest of the parties.

Frankly, I see our respective positions as diammetrically opposed. Thus it would seem likely that the Red Ensign page will be forever protected WITH A DISPUTED CAVEAT (in the page heading).

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 05:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,

In an attempt to leave "no stone unturned" I shall address your following assertions, quoted below,

 * There are many groups in the US that advocate the stars and stripes as the US national flag so the action of one or other group is not significant. There are few groups in Canada that advocate the adoption of the Canadian Red Ensign as the national flag. That all of them are neo-nazi or fascist groups is notable. As for your other comments please desist from personal attacks. Many people had problems with Paul Vogel and his unreconstructed anti-semitism, that's why he was banned, for you to accept his criticisms of others as a fact worth repeating does not do much for your credibility or say much for the quality of your judgement. AndyL 04:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I re-state, the fact that you believe that the linking of these Facists groups to the Red Ensign "note-worthy" is just YOUR POV. Equally the opinion that I do not find this "linkage to be note-worthy" is just MY POV.

 * "One more thing, I openly advocate here," Perhaps your advocacy is interfering with your ability to edit according to the rules regarding Neutral Point of View? You advocate for the red ensign, hence you do not wish to see it associated with something disreputable like fascism, hence you object to any mention of fascist groups advocating the red ensign's return not because to say this would be untrue but because it is contrary to your POV orientation of advocating for the flag. AndyL 05:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next up, the fact that I openly advocate the re-instatement of the old Red Ensign, and/or the possible consideration of an even newer Flag design (perhaps one with BOTH the UNION JACK and the FLEUR-DE-LIS in it) is my just opinion (or POV). It is also my POV that your choice of linking these Facists groups to the Red Ensign is not befitting the standards of Wikipedia (which aims to be an on-line Encyclopedia), and will only serve to eventually reduce this entire website to the low repute, and creditabilty of the average "garden-variety" BLOG.

Again, this is my POV.

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 06:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Australia
If this page is ever unprotected, could whomever does it leave a note on my talk page so that i can add an entry about the aussie red ensign. The bellman 11:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Hello Bellman,

I really like the Australian and New Zealand Flags alot. Their respectively National Flags (Blue Ensigns) are both elagant and beautiful designs (in my POV). I also love their Red Ensign counterparts,

Australia Red Ensign(Merchant Ensign of the Navy)

http://flagspot.net/images/a/au-red.gif

New Zealand Red Ensign (Merchant Ensign of the Navy)

http://flagspot.net/images/n/nz_civil.gif

Proposed 1964 Canadian Red Ensign (Possible new National Flag)

http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/flagdisplay/images/web/panel13-3.jpg

I really love this "Star Constillation" theme. The Australia and New Zealand Red Ensigns have the Southern Cross, and in kinship the (proposed) Canadian Red Ensign has Big Dipper.

I sincerely hope that this dispute between AndyL and I can be worked out, and your contributions Bellman, would be a true pleasure to read.

Sincerely,

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 15:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndL: Is the Red Ensign page to suffer the fate of the "LaRouche" Debate?
AndyL,

This is quoted from your own TalkPage,

15 LaRouche

15.1 Vandalism in progress page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyL#Red_Tory

 * LaRouche

 * Andy, I am withdrawing from the two LaRouche articles. I no longer have the time or incliniation to spend hours in endless circular arguments with these nutters about someone who however disgusting is basically not very important and will soon be dead anyway. Sorry to leave you to deal with this alone. Adam 09:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I doubt anyone will be able to get the articles in balance, because it is one of the basic structural weaknesses of Wikipedia that determined fanatics will always eventually succeed in having their way against reasonable editors, who sooner or later get bored and go away, as we have done. Adam 02:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First off, my politics are Right-of-Centre, and your politics are Left-of-Centre. You have left a litany of conflicts over the Wikipedia talk pages, and alot of opinion pages on the internet. So I openly acknowledge that I have you at a disadvantage, as they say.

So with so much for me "to go on" about you AndyL, it is only fair that I offer to you some information about me, ArmChairVexillologistDon. This is done in an effort so that we might actually try to understand the others POV. My hobby (rather my passion) is Heraldy (Coats-of-Arms, Family Crests) and Vexillology (the study of Flags). I love patterns, and the rules for constructing them. They are to me, a historical visual record presented in the form of art. Yes I am a "Flag-Nutter". Hence, my tenacity about our Red Ensign tempest-in-tea-pot.

Anyways, Flags and Crests are things that are near an dear to my heart, and I do not like to see them "slandered" ( Rather my preception of them being slandered, i.e., POV). I guess the real issue between us is your view that the recording of the said Facist links to the Red Ensign as VITAL POINT of information, based on your own beliefs, and values.   On the other hand, I view your Red Ensign reference as a trival, and petty point, meant only to raise awareness that Facist-Nutters will embrace any symbol, as long as it gets them attention..

It seems that, you and I, are at a FUNDEMENTAL IMPASS, so where do we go form here AndyL, eh?

Sincerely,

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 16:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Your personal attacks are inappropriate. It is also inappropriate to post an editor's full name on wikipedia if they are using a pseudonym. As for where we go from here perhaps you should decide if you're willing to accept mediation or not. AndyL 18:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL,

I am willing to accept mediation. I have openly stated so. The question is do you feel that you and I, have any common ground to base a comprimise on?

I feel strongly that your said Facist links are irrelavent, and you feel strongly that they are vital information. Frankly, I see that as an impass situation has arisen. At least it appears that way to me.

Next up, these were NOT personal attacks. I am not critisising your political beliefs, and values. I am listing your internet references sincerely for one end, and one end alone, to illustrate my opinion that you most likely do not possess anything resembling NPOV on the Red Ensign Flag. Again, this is not a personal attack upon you. This is an attempt to illustrate your past behaviour of instransiance, and "questionable rationalisations".

Please refer to this link.

http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@buo319b.econ.utah.edu/msg02174.html

In your own words, quoted below,

 * Anyway, at the time, I looked at the letter and thought that it was completely ridiculous and nothing more but a facile attempt to bully me.

 * But, since I was tired of the whole dispute and thought it was all a waste of time I signed it. Another reason I signed it was since the Socialist Caucus has no "membership" as such (remember, groups can get expelled from the NDP or being a "party within a party") a letter stating that I was resigning from the Socialist Caucus was absolutely meaningless. You can no more "resign" from the Socialist Caucus than you can resign from the human race. (Ok, a bit of an exaggerated comparison but you get the picture.)

 * More recently I've had disputes, heated disputes, with the co-chairs on other issues. My relationship has deteriorated profoundly since I started expressing interest in the Rebuidling the Left conference.

"One can no more resign from the Socialist Causus, than one can resign from the Human Race".

You signed a paper resigning from the Socialist Caucus, at the request of management. You were then taken to task because in their eyes you went back on your agreement. A WRITTEN AGREEMENT.

I ask you this AndyL, if you can use your own inner justifications to defy a WRITTEN AGREEMENT, how you and I settle this trival Red Ensign tempest-in-a-tea-pot?

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 18:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Red Ensign/Archive 1


text:
CQ Press

CQ Press, a division of SAGE Publishing, publishes books, directories, periodicals, and electronic products on American government and politics, with an expanding list in international affairs and journalism and mass communication.

History
Nelson Poynter, former journalist and owner of the St. Petersburg Times, and his wife Henrietta, founded Congressional Quarterly in 1945. Poynter's vision for Congressional Quarterly was to make transparent the happenings within the government and Washington, DC. Poynter established the Modern Media Institute, now known as the Poynter Institute, with the mission of promoting democracy through education to journalists and other media leaders. After Poynter's death in 1978, the Institute received controlling stock of the St. Petersburg Times and ownership of CQ.

In May 2008, CQ Press was purchased from Congressional Quarterly by SAGE Publications in its entirety. SAGE is an international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets. A privately owned corporation, SAGE has offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore, in addition to the CQ Press office in Washington, DC.

Awards
CQ Researcher, a print and online periodical covering social and political issues, won the ABA Silver Gavel Award in 2002 for its series on liberty and justice.

College Publishing Group
The CQ Press College Publishing Group publishes political science textbooks. The group has recently expanded its offerings to include works on public administration, international studies, journalism and mass communication.

Reference Information Group
The CQ Press Reference Information Group publishes content designed for the library market. These publications provide information focusing on U.S. government, world affairs, communication, political science, and business, with a growing focus on digital content.

Professional Division
The CQ Press Professional Division produces staff directories, sources for biographical and contact information on the people who work in federal, congressional, and judicial offices. Included among the directories published is the CQ Press Staff Directories series, consisting of the Congressional Staff Directory, the Federal Staff Directory, and the Judicial Staff Directory. These publications contain contact information on the federal government. The Congressional Staff Directory has been published continuously since 1959, the Federal Staff Directory since 1982, and the Judicial Staff Directory since 1986. Each directory in the series features multiple print editions throughout the year and is complemented with Web-based daily updates. In 2011, the division introduced its latest product: First Street, a political intelligence platform for advocacy professionals. The First Street Research Group (FSRG) reviews, investigates, and analyzes the data in First Street to publish exclusive reports and analysis on the people and organizations influencing policy in Washington, DC.

Directories
CQ Press published directories with contact information for the federal government for over fifty years. The directories were commonly known around the Nation's capital as “Red Books”, because of their red covers. In 2012, Leadership Directories, Inc. (now named Leadership Connect) acquired these directories.

Congressional Staff Directory: With over 16,000 records, Congressional Staff Directory contains entries for all U.S. Senators and Representatives with expanded biographies, photographs, leadership positions, staff members, and contact information.

Federal Staff Directory: CQ Press's Federal Staff Directory is a reference for contacts in the Executive Office of the President, the Cabinet, independent agencies, and quasi-official agencies.

Judicial Staff Directory: A guide to move than 28,000 individuals in National Courts, the Federal Court, Bankruptcy Courts, and State Appellate Courts.

Federal Collection: The collection includes Congressional, Federal, Judicial, and Homeland Security Staff Directories online.

Worldwide Government Directory: contact information for top government leaders across the globe. The directory contains information for countries’ defense ministries, key intergovernmental organizations, U.S. Embassies and missions abroad, and foreign embassies in the U.S.

Directory of State Court Clerks & County Courthouses: Offers access to information including court decisions, real estate records, UCC and tax liens, criminal convictions and other important records.

Federal-State Court Directory: Contains all U.S. appellate and district judges and clerks of court, U.S. magistrate judges, and bankruptcy judges’ staff directory information in one convenient book.

"CQ Press" is a trademark of Congressional Quarterly Inc.

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

title: CQ Press


text:
User talk:KatDevsGames

Hi Mmxbass, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes ( ~ ). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian!

Andre ( talk )A| 01:16, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Protection of featured articles
Re this edit - see user:Raul654/protection Raul654 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country). Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KatDevsGames


text:
Ed Marinaro

Ed Marinaro (born March 31, 1950) is an American actor and former football running back who played in the National Football League (NFL) for the Minnesota Vikings. He played college football for the Cornell Big Red, where he was a unanimous All-American and won the Maxwell Award in 1971.

From 2010 to 2011, Marinaro starred in the football comedy series Blue Mountain State. He is also known as a regular cast member of Hill Street Blues, playing Officer Joe Coffey for five seasons (1981–1986).

Football
Marinaro played high school football in New Milford, New Jersey, for the New Milford High School Knights.

Marinaro played college football at Cornell University, where he was a three-time All-American, and set over 16 NCAA records. He was the first running back in NCAA history to run for 4,000 career rushing yards, and led the nation in rushing in 1971.

Marinaro was runner-up to Pat Sullivan for the Heisman Trophy in 1971, the highest finish for an Ivy League player since the league de-emphasized football in the mid-1950s. Princeton's Dick Kazmaier won the award in 1951 when the Ivy was still considered a major football conference. Marinaro won the 1971 Maxwell Award and the UPI College Football Player of the Year as the top player in college football. He holds four NCAA records: most rushes per game in a season (39.6 in 1971), career average carries per game (34.0, 1969–71), most rushing yards per game over an entire career (174.6, 1969–71), and earliest game reaching 1,000 rushing yards (5th, 1971).

While at Cornell, Marinaro was a member of Psi Upsilon and was selected for membership in the Sphinx Head Society. He went on to play professional football for six seasons with the Minnesota Vikings, New York Jets and Seattle Seahawks, appearing in Super Bowl VIII and Super Bowl IX with the Vikings. He scored 13 touchdowns over his career.

Acting
After leaving football, Marinaro became an actor. He has been a cast member on a number of television series, including Laverne & Shirley and Sisters. He joined the regular cast of Hill Street Blues in 1981, playing officer Joe Coffey until 1986. Furthermore he co-presented the Crystal Light USA National Aerobic Championship. He also appeared in the 2006 film Circus Island.

Marinaro played the head football coach for three seasons on Spike TV's comedy, Blue Mountain State.

In September 2019, Marinaro was a guest on Turner Classic Movies. With Ben Mankiewicz, he appeared in wraparounds and provided introductions for films in a college football-themed series.

Personal life
Marinaro is married to fitness expert Tracy York and has one son.

Honors
Marinaro was inducted to the College Football Hall of Fame in 1991.

In January 2020, Marinaro was named by ESPN as one of the "150 greatest players in college football's 150-year history", ranking at number 126. He was one of only three Ivy League players on the list. ESPN wrote of Marinaro, "It is up for debate as to whether Marinaro is the last great running back produced by the Ivy League. What is not up for debate are the numbers that illustrate his production."

title: Ed Marinaro


text:
Emu War

The Emu War (or Great Emu War) was a nuisance wildlife management military operation undertaken in Australia over the later part of 1932 to address public concern over the number of emus said to be destroying crops in the Campion district within the Wheatbelt of Western Australia. The unsuccessful attempts to curb the population of emus employed Royal Australian Artillery soldiers armed with Lewis guns—leading the media to adopt the name "Emu War" when referring to the incident. Although many birds were killed, the emu population persisted and continued to cause crop destruction.

Background
Following World War I, large numbers of discharged veterans who served in the war were given land by the Australian government to take up farming within Western Australia, often in agriculturally marginal areas. With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, these farmers were encouraged to increase their wheat crops, with the government promising—and failing to deliver—assistance in the form of subsidies. Because of the recommendations and the promised subsidies, wheat prices continued to fall, and by October 1932 the situation intensified, with the farmers preparing to harvest the season's crop while simultaneously threatening to refuse to deliver the wheat.

The farmers' difficulties were worsened by the arrival of approximately 20,000 emus. Emus regularly migrate after their breeding season, heading to the coast from the inland regions. With the cleared land and additional water supplies being made available for livestock by the Western Australian farmers, the emus found that the cultivated lands were good habitat, and they began to foray into farm territory—in particular the marginal farming land around Chandler and Walgoolan. The emus consumed and spoiled the crops and left large gaps in fences where rabbits could enter and cause further problems.

Farmers relayed their concerns about the birds ravaging their crops, and a deputation of ex-soldiers were sent to meet with the Minister of Defence, Sir George Pearce. Having served in World War I, the soldier-settlers were well aware of the effectiveness of machine guns, and they requested their deployment. The minister readily agreed, although with conditions attached: the guns were to be used by military personnel, troop transport was to be financed by the Western Australian government, and the farmers would provide food, accommodation, and payment for the ammunition. Pearce also supported the deployment on the grounds that the birds would make good target practice, while it has also been argued that some in the government may have viewed the operation as a way of being seen to be helping the Western Australian farmers, as well as to stave off the brewing secession movement. Towards that end, a cinematographer from Fox Movietone was enlisted.

The "war"
Military involvement was due to begin in October 1932. The "war" was conducted under the command of Major Gwynydd Purves Wynne-Aubrey Meredith of the Royal Australian Artillery's 7th Heavy Artillery, with Meredith commanding soldiers Sergeant S. McMurray and Gunner J. O'Halloran, armed with two Lewis guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. The operation was delayed, however, by a period of rainfall that caused the emus to scatter over a wider area. The rain ceased by 2 November 1932, whereupon the troops were deployed with orders to assist the farmers and, according to a newspaper account, to collect 100 emu skins so that their feathers could be used to make hats for light horsemen.

First attempt
On 2 November, the men travelled to Campion, where some 50 emus were sighted. As the birds were out of range of the guns, the local settlers attempted to herd the emus into an ambush, but the birds split into small groups and ran so that they were difficult to target. Nevertheless, while the first fusillade from the machine guns was ineffective due to the range, a second round of gunfire was able to kill "a number" of birds. Later the same day a small flock was encountered, and "perhaps a dozen" birds were killed.

The next significant event was on 4 November. Meredith had established an ambush near a local dam, and more than 1,000 emus were spotted heading towards their position. This time the gunners waited until the birds were in close proximity before opening fire. The gun jammed after only 12 birds were killed and the remainder scattered before any more could be shot. No more birds were sighted that day.

In the days that followed, Meredith chose to move further south, where the birds were "reported to be fairly tame", but there was only limited success in spite of his efforts. By the fourth day of the campaign, army observers noted that "each pack seems to have its own leader now—a big black-plumed bird which stands fully six feet high and keeps watch while his mates carry out their work of destruction and warns them of our approach". At one stage Meredith even went so far as to mount one of the guns on a truck, a move that proved to be ineffective, as the truck was unable to gain on the birds, and the ride was so rough that the gunner was unable to fire any shots. By 8 November, six days after the first engagement, 2,500 rounds of ammunition had been fired. The number of birds killed is uncertain: one account estimates that it was 50 birds, but other accounts range from 200 to 500, the latter figure being provided by the settlers. Meredith's official report noted that his men had suffered no casualties.

Summarising the culls, ornithologist Dominic Serventy commented: "The machine-gunners' dreams of point blank fire into serried masses of Emus were soon dissipated. The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units that made use of the military equipment uneconomic. A crestfallen field force therefore withdrew from the combat area after about a month."

On 8 November, members in the Australian House of Representatives discussed the operation. Following the negative coverage of the events in the local media, that included claims that "only a few" emus had died, Pearce withdrew the military personnel and the guns on 8 November.

After the withdrawal, Major Meredith compared the emus to Zulus and commented on the striking manoeuvrability of the emus, even while badly wounded. "If we had a military division with the bullet-carrying capacity of these birds it would face any army in the world ... They can face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks. They are like Zulus whom even dum-dum bullets could not stop."

Second attempt
After the withdrawal of the military, the emu attacks on crops continued. Farmers again asked for support, citing the hot weather and drought that brought emus invading farms in the thousands. James Mitchell, the Premier of Western Australia lent his strong support to renewal of the military assistance. At the same time, a report from the Base Commander was issued that indicated 300 emus had been killed in the initial operation.

Acting on the requests and the Base Commander's report, by 12 November the Minister of Defence approved a resumption of military efforts. He defended the decision in the Senate, explaining why the soldiers were necessary to combat the serious agricultural threat of the large emu population. Although the military had agreed to lend the guns to the Western Australian government on the expectation that they would provide the necessary people, Meredith was once again placed in the field due to an apparent lack of experienced machine gunners in the state.

Taking to the field on 13 November 1932, the military found a degree of success over the first two days, with approximately 40 emus killed. The third day, 15 November, proved to be far less successful, but by 2 December the soldiers were killing approximately 100 emus per week. Meredith was recalled on 10 December, and in his report he claimed 986 confirmed kills with 9,860 rounds, at a rate of exactly 10 rounds per confirmed kill. In addition, Meredith claimed exactly 2,500 wounded birds had also died from their injuries. In assessing the success of the cull, an article in the Coolgardie Miner on 23 August 1935 reported that although the use of machine guns had been "criticised in many quarters, the method proved effective and saved what remained of the wheat".

Aftermath
Despite the problems encountered with the cull, the farmers of the region once again requested military assistance in 1934, 1943, and 1948, only to be turned down by the government. Instead, the bounty system that had been instigated in 1923 was continued, and this proved to be effective: 57,034 bounties were claimed over a six-month period in 1934.

By December 1932, word of the Emu War had spread, reaching the United Kingdom. Some conservationists there protested the cull as "extermination of the rare emu". Dominic Serventy and Hubert Whittell, the eminent Australian ornithologists, described the "war" as "an attempt at the mass destruction of the birds".

Throughout 1930 and onward, exclusion barrier fencing became a popular means of keeping emus out of agricultural areas (in addition to other vermin, such as dingoes and rabbits).

In November 1950, Hugh Leslie raised the issues of emus in federal parliament and urged Army Minister Josiah Francis to release a quantity of .303 ammunition from the army for the use of farmers. The minister approved the release of 500,000 rounds of ammunition.

Legacy
In 2019, a musical adaptation of the story was workshopped in Melbourne by playwright Simeon Yialeloglou and composer James Court. An action-comedy film, titled The Emu War, premiered at Monster Fest on 22 October 2023. Another action-comedy movie retelling of the events, written by John Cleese, Monty Franklin, Rob Schneider, Camilla Cleese, and Jim Jefferies, was aiming to begin production in 2023 or 2024.

title: Emu War


text:
Gillian Armstrong

Gillian May Armstrong (born 18 December 1950) is an Australian feature film and documentary director,  best known for My Brilliant Career, Little Women  , The Last Days of Chez Nous, and Mrs. Soffel. She is a Member of the Order of Australia.

She has won multiple awards including an AFI Best Director Award, and has been nominated for numerous other awards including a Palme D'Or and two Golden Bear Awards. She has received multiple Honorary Doctorates including an Honorary Doctor of Letter Degree from University of Sydney, and an Honorary Doctorate from Swinburne University of Technology.

Early life
Armstrong was born in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 18 December 1950. She went to a local high school, Vermont High School (now Vermont Secondary College), and was the middle child of a local real estate agent father and a primary school teacher mother who gave up work to have a family. Armstrong stated in The Australian that her parents were always very supportive of their hopes and dreams, which was not always the way it was for women in the 1960s and 70s. Her father was a frustrated photographer who wasn't allowed to follow his dreams professionally, yet always practised as an amateur. Armstrong reminisces of how she grew up in a dark room, learning all about photography. When she first decided to go to art school, Armstrong didn't have a very firm grasp on what she wanted to do.

Armstrong grew up in the eastern suburb of Mitcham. Armstrong was a technical theatre student at Swinburne Technical College while paying her tuition by working as a waitress. Originally, she attended school to become a theatrical set designer but the school that she attended also offered a film course. After she took it she was enamored by the great names of cinema and decided to enter the film industry. Then she won a scholarship to join the first 12 students at the country's first and only film school, the Australian Film and Television School. While she was in school, the Australian film industry was non existent, and she recalls how weird the accent sounded in new films, because it wasn't American, it was Australian. She attended Swinburne Technical College with the intention of becoming a theatre costume designer, but it was here she became increasingly interested in film. During this time, she was exposed to a range of artistic films that differentiated from the commercial cinema and television she was used to.

After graduating from art school in 1968, Armstrong was set on pursuing a career in film. She began making short films of 2–10 minutes, and started work as an assistant editor in a commercial film house, which lasted a year.

Career
Following a string of small jobs within the Australian film industry, she achieved her first directorial recognition through her short film The Singer and the Dancer which won an award at the Sydney Film Festival.

Armstrong became a film director at the age of 27. During the time of the development of Australian Cinema Armstrong recalls in a Washington Post interview that tremendous tax breaks led to a frightful overproduction. Everybody was interested in doing deals and even stockbrokers were becoming directors. However, very few of them had the commitment to cinema that Armstrong and others had, and the films would be shown for a week or two, or not released at all. After Armstrong's second film My Brilliant Career, she had offers from Hollywood but quickly turned them all away, preferring to stay in Australia to make a deliberately small film called Starstruck. After the release of Starstruck, Armstrong went around giving interviews dressed in a large fuzzy blue sweater dress decorated with coloured beads, a black-and-white polka dot blouse, black tights and blue suede shoes all topped by a punk shag haircut.

Following this success, Armstrong was commissioned by the South Australian Film Corporation to make a documentary exploring the lives of young teenage girls living in Adelaide, South Australia. This became Smokes and Lollies (1976), her first paid job as director.

Armstrong's own interest in the girls led her to revisit them at ages 18, 26, 33 and 48, resulting in four more films in the style of the popular "Up Series". These are Fourteen's Good, Eighteen's Better (1980), Bingo, Bridesmaids and Braces (1988), Not Fourteen Again (1996), and her most recent film Love, Lust & Lies (2009)

Armstrong's first feature-length film My Brilliant Career (1979), an adaptation of Miles Franklin's novel of the same name, was the first Australian feature-length film to be directed by a woman for 46 years. Armstrong received six awards at the 1979 Australian Film Awards (previously the Australian Film Institute Awards, or AFI's) including Best Director. The film also brought considerable attention to its two main stars, Judy Davis and Sam Neill who were relatively unknown at the time. Following the success of My Brilliant Career, which was nominated for an Academy Award in Best Costume Design, Armstrong directed the Australian rock-musical Starstruck which proved her ability to tackle more contemporary and experimental subject matter and styles.

She has directed a number of rock music videos in the early 1980s, including 1984's "Bop Girl" by Pat Wilson, which featured Nicole Kidman.

Since then, Armstrong has specialised in period drama. She was the first foreign woman to be approached by the American film company MGM to finance her direction of a big-budget feature, which became Mrs. Soffel (1984) starring Mel Gibson and Diane Keaton. This film tells the true story of an affair between a prisoner and a prison warden's wife, and was relatively well received by audiences and critics.

On returning to Australia, Armstrong continued to make both documentaries and feature films. She earned great recognition for High Tide (1987) and The Last Days of Chez Nous (1992), for which she was nominated for Best Director at the 1987 and 1992 Australian Film Institute Awards (AFIs). The Last Days of Chez Nous also earned her a nomination at the Berlin Film Festival. Despite this, both films were largely unrecognised internationally

Armstrong discusses the making of High Tide in the 2003 Canadian documentary Complete Unknown co-directed by Griffin Ondaatje and Craig Proctor.

In 1994, Armstrong achieved her greatest Hollywood success with the adaptation of Little Women, starring Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, Gabriel Byrne, Christian Bale, Claire Danes and Kirsten Dunst. This adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel was one of the most popular films of the year, and emphasises Armstrong's focus on portraying the intimate lives of strong female characters and their relationships with one another.

She followed this success three years later with the film Oscar and Lucinda (1997), starring Ralph Fiennes and a relatively unknown Cate Blanchett. This film, based on the novel by Australian writer Peter Carey, tells the story of a mismatched love affair in 19th-century Australia. It received mixed reviews both locally and internationally, despite its high production value and strong performances by the film main actors.

In the 2000s, Armstrong went on to direct the feature films Charlotte Gray (2001), starring Cate Blanchett, and Death Defying Acts (2008), starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and Guy Pearce. Based on the novel by Sebastian Faulks, Charlotte Gray is another of Armstrong's films that centres around a strong female protagonist.

Removed from Armstrong's usual subject matter, Death Defying Acts portrays a moment in the life of 1920s escape artist Harry Houdini in the style of a supernatural, romantic thriller. It received a modest earning at the box office, and was part of a special screening at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival

Despite the success of these more commercial films, it was Armstrong's lesser-known documentary Unfolding Florence: The Many Lives of Florence Broadhurst (2006), which earned her the most critical recognition during this time, and a nomination for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival.

Themes
Armstrong has voiced her desire to reach a wide audience in her interviews, one that includes both men and women of all nationalities. However, her work continually addresses sexual politics and family tensions. Films focused on the escape and struggle with traditional sex roles and its related drawbacks and progressions such as One hundred a Day, My Brilliant Career, High Tide, and Oscar and Lucinda continue to reflect the theme. Furthermore, many people have called her a creator of "strong females" but she insists that she is simply making films about complex characters and the choices that they make.

Style
Armstrong has a distinctive style in her work that resists easy categorisation. Most of her films cannot simply be stated as being either "women's films" or Australian ones which are the two most generalised categories for women in her line of work. Armstrong's films are described as mixing and intermingling genres in ways that recreate them as something vastly different than what they have been considered. Nevertheless, the films that Armstrong creates can also be considered conventional films in their appeal to the audience. Her films possess sensitive and delicate cinematography, fluid editing, an evocative feel for setting and costume, and a commitment to solid character development and acting. According to film scholar Gwendolyn Audrey Foster, Armstrong has a "strong feminist bent" and a "mordant sense of humor".

Personal life
Armstrong is married to John Pleffer, and they have two daughters.

title: Gillian Armstrong


text:
ABJ

Abj is an abbreviation for abject, abjunction, and abjuration. ABJ may also refer to:

 * ABJ (motorcycle), a 1950s bike built by AB Jackson Cycles of Birmingham, England
 * Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, in theoretical physics
 * Abaeté Linhas Aéreas, Brazil airline ICAO code
 * Félix-Houphouët-Boigny International Airport, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire IATA code
 * Aka-Bea language, ISO 639 code
 * The American Business Journal, monthly business publication
 * Anything But Joey, pop-rock band
 * Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, degree at the University of Georgia, United States

title: ABJ


text:
St. Johns (electoral district)

St. Johns is a provincial electoral division in the Canadian province of Manitoba. It was created by redistribution in 1957, and has formally existed since 1958. It is located in the north-end of Winnipeg. The constituency is bordered by Kildonan to the north and west, Burrows to the west, Elmwood to the east, and Point Douglas to the south.

The riding's population in 1996 was 20,023. The average family income in 1999 was $40,443, with an unemployment rate of 10.90%. Over 35% of the riding's residents are categorized as low-income.

St. Johns has a diverse population. Ten per cent of the riding's residents listed Ukrainian as their ethnic origin in 1999, with a further 6% Polish and 5% Jewish. Twelve per cent of the riding's residents are aboriginal. Manufacturing jobs accounted for 18% of the riding's industry, with a further 15% in services.

Since its creation, St. Johns has been represented by members of the Manitoba Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and its successor, the New Democratic Party (NDP). It is considered safe for the party. The current MLA is Nahanni Fontaine, who was elected in the Manitoba general election, 2016.

Members of the Legislative Assembly
This riding has elected the following MLAs:

title: St. Johns (electoral district)


text:
Current History

Current History is the oldest extant United States-based publication devoted exclusively to contemporary world affairs. The magazine was founded in 1914 by George Washington Ochs Oakes, brother of The New York Times' publisher Adolph Ochs, in order to provide detailed coverage of World War I. Current History was published by the New York Times Company from its founding until 1936. Since 1942 it has been owned by members of the Redmond family; its current publisher is Daniel Mark Redmond.

Current History, based in Philadelphia, maintains no institutional, political, or governmental affiliation. It is published monthly, from September through May. Seven issues each year are devoted to world regions (China and East Asia, Russia and Eurasia, the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, South Asia, and Africa); one issue covers current global trends; and one issue addresses a special theme such as climate change or global governance. The magazine has followed this practice of devoting each issue to a single region or theme since 1953. Each issue includes a chronology of major international events, and most contain a book review section and an article devoted to commentary.

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2014 impact factor of 0.127, ranking it 149th out of 161 journals in the category "Political Science" and 82nd out of 85 journals in the category "International Relations".

History
The first of the journal, which was initially called The New York Times Current History of the European War, was published on December 12, 1914.

Shortly after Current History began publishing in 1914, its editor, Ochs Oakes, decided that a magazine recording “history in the making” should maintain as regular contributors a group of historians and social scientists. He enlisted the help of a Harvard historian, Albert Bushnell Hart, in organizing the journal’s initial group of contributing editors.

Contributors to Current History in the publication's early years included George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, Charles A. Beard, Allan Nevins, and Henry Steele Commager. Grover Clark was its Beijing correspondent. More recently, the journal has featured authors such as James Schlesinger, Francis Fukuyama, Jeffrey Sachs, Bruce Riedel, Leslie H. Gelb, Bruce Russett, Elizabeth Economy, Charles Kupchan, Ivo Daalder, Joseph Cirincione, Phebe Marr, Juan Cole, Bruce Gilley, and Marina Ottaway.

The magazine was linked to an international scandal in the run-up to World War II. The New York Times had sold Current History in 1936 to the editor Merle Tracy; in 1939 it was sold again, to an ownership group that included Joseph Hilton Smyth, who also acquired such magazines as The Living Age and The North American Review. Smyth's association with Current History ended the same year, but he and two associates, in connection with their publishing activities, were later convicted of acting as agents for the Japanese government without registering with the State Department. Current History addressed this episode in its October 1942 issue, maintaining that Smyth during the months that he held an ownership interest in the publication did not control editorial policies."

Editorial team
Current History's board of contributing editors today includes Catherine Boone (The London School of Economics and Political Science); Holly Case (Brown University); Uri Dadush (Bruegel); Deborah Davis (Yale University); David B. H. Denoon (New York University); Alexndra Délano Alonso (The New School); Larry Diamond (Stanford University); Michele Dunne (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley); C. Christine Fair (Georgetown University); Sumit Ganguly (Indiana University); Michael T. Klare (Hampshire College); Marwan M. Kraidy (Northwestern University in Qatar); Joshua Kurlantzick (Council on Foreign Relations); Pamela McElwee (Rutgers University); Michael McFaul (Stanford University); Rajan Menon (Lehigh University); Joseph Nye (Harvard University); Ebenezer Obadare (Council on Foreign Relations); Michael Shifter (Inter-American Dialogue); and Jeffrey Wasserstrom (University of California, Irvine). The publication's editor is Joshua Lustig.

title: Current History


text:
Talk:Austin Township, Mower County, Minnesota

It says that austin has a population of about 1,370 in this article. This is false the 2000 census said that Austin had a population of greater than 23,000. (unsigned comment by anon 207.177.2.7 )
 * The population of a township (at least on Wikipedia) does not include the population of incorporated areas within that township. But yes, you're right, the city of Austin, Minnesota (located in Austin & Lansing townships) has 23,000+ people.--Hraefen 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Austin Township, Mower County, Minnesota. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


text:
User:CatherineMunro/Copyrights

I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

title: User:CatherineMunro/Copyrights


text:
4077

4077 may refer to:
 * 4077, a standard XNOR gate CMOS integrated circuit
 * 4077th, a fictional U.S. Army hospital in the show M*A*S*H
 * 4077, the postcode for Inala, Queensland, Australia
 * 4077, the postcode for Tolaga Bay, Gisborne Region, New Zealand

title: 4077


text:
Talk:John Drew Barrymore

Incorrect date for marriage to Nina Wayne?
This date for the marriage to Nina Wayne seems to be incorrect:

Nina Wayne (1985–1994) (divorced)[citation needed] (1 child) Brahma (Jessica) Blyth Barrymore (1966–2014) Zoghart (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Drew Barrymore


text:
Forged (book)

Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are is a book by American New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, published in 2011 by HarperCollins.

Arguments and contentions
In antiquity, pseudepigraphy was an accepted practice in which a writer attributed his work to a well-known figure from the past or a teacher who had greatly influenced him. Forged contends that the practice was not in fact accepted and would have been condemned as dishonest by all authorities in antiquity. Ehrman maintains that the more honest term for such falsely attributed writings is "forgery".

The book posits that between eight and eleven of the twenty-seven books of the Christian New Testament canon were written as forgeries. Ehrman points out numerous inconsistencies he finds within the New Testament that appear to support many of his claims, such as the fact that in Acts 4, the statement is made that both Peter and  John were illiterate, yet in later years entire books of the Bible were then alleged to have been written by them.

New Testament books identified as forgeries by Ehrman

 * First Epistle of Peter
 * Second Epistle of Peter
 * Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
 * First Epistle to Timothy
 * Second Epistle to Timothy
 * Epistle to Titus
 * Epistle to the Ephesians
 * Epistle to the Colossians
 * Epistle of Jude

False attributions
In addition to the books of the New Testament Ehrman identifies as forgeries, he discusses eight originally anonymous New Testament texts that had names of apostles ascribed to them later and are falsely attributed. These are not forgeries since the texts are anonymous but have had false authors ascribed to them by others:

 * Gospel of Matthew
 * Gospel of Mark
 * Gospel of Luke
 * Gospel of John
 * The Acts of the Apostles
 * First Epistle of John
 * Second Epistle of John
 * Third Epistle of John
 * Epistle to the Hebrews

The Epistle of James is not technically a forgery because it does not claim to be specifically by James, the brother of Jesus. Rather, it claims to be by "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). James, Ehrman notes, was a common name. Two of Jesus' disciples had that name, as did the brother of Jesus. It may very well have been written by someone named James. However, to the extent that the author gives the impression that they are James, the brother of Jesus, it might be considered a forgery: Ehrman notes that the author doesn't specify which James he is, meaning "that he is claiming to be the most famous James of all, Jesus's brother."

Reviews
The book was positively reviewed by the Library Journal.

United Methodist pastor and biblical scholar Ben Witherington III (Asbury Theological Seminary) wrote a long and detailed critique of Ehrman's positions in his blog. Presbyterian pastor and biblical scholar Michael J. Kruger (Reformed Theological Seminary) also wrote a detailed critique of Ehrman's book in the website of The Gospel Coalition.

title: Forged (book)