text:
Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement/Poll archive

Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement

The vote is approximately 8 supporting, 56 opposing. Maurreen 19:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Of course, OneGuy 17:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) See Allowing everyone to register with any e-mail OneGuy 04:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I have been advocating a step like this for almost as long as I have been contributing to Wikipedia. Unless Wikipedia takes some policy initiative such as this, it will not only be unable to achieve its objectives, it will begin to deteriorate in quality as serious editors are driven away. Adam 22:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) WhisperToMe 23:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) - Do as needed - e.g. gradually increase the amount of regulation when seen fit. I do not have anything else than Hotmail and Yahoo, so again, increase as seen fit. I would like to have the proposal broken down in parts, e.g. approve this and this action.
 * 4) Support. However, I would favor an alternative plan, without restrictions on the E-mail origin, but instead requiring a twenty-four hour period between registration and first edit. If you slow down impulsive anonymous vandals you effectively solve that problem, because few of them will bother registering and waiting around to vandalize. --Gary D 01:39, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Just common sense. Fred Bauder 15:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Perhaps only controversial articles should have this policy on them; nevertheless, it's a good idea. -YixilTesiphon
 * 7) I wholeheartedly support. 66.167.236.158 11:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, as would most anyone who spends precious time labelling anonymous nonsense with delete tags. I'm perfectly anonymous myself, yet my Wikipedia record defines me. ISP numbers introduce unnecessary confusion about Users' identity.   --Wetman 14:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Would however suppose the ability to temporarily/indefinitely protect pages from anonymous edits. --Rebroad 14:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) admins/arbitrators and the rest of us appear to deal effectively with trolls, POV pushers, and spammers => the first premise of your argument fails, rendering unnecessary shredding of the rest of the proposal. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * And how do you deal with dynamic IPs and transparent proxy IPs for the largest ISPs in some countries? You cannot block that IP for a long time because it affects thousand of users. Even if currently this is not a major problem, since the place is growing rapidly, the problem would grow when you have thousands of trolls OneGuy 18:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if currently this is not a major problem. Exactly. When we have thousands of trolls, remake your proposal. Until then please respect my vote as my final word on the matter. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * I respect your vote. But since this page was created to discuss the issue, don't I have right to comment on responses? I am not trying to change your "vote" but express my opinion and clarify the problem for myself at least. Yes, this might not be a major problem right now, but it still is a problem. As an example, I posted some evidence of abuse by the user 168.209.97.34 here. Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34/Evidence. Someone else posted more evidence against the guy on the same page, but 168.209.97.34 is a proxy server for the largest ISP in South Africa. The evidence posted by the second guy might not have been against the same person. I didn't see an effective solution to dealing with this guy without harming other users who use that ISP. In my opinion, there is a problem here. But of course you have a right to disagree, as you did OneGuy 19:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if the problem is only with proxy servers, then the solution should be restricted to proxy servers as well. Require a user account to use problem IP addresses.  Give admins a means of blocking an IP address without blocking user accounts which use that IP address.
 * Boy, I really admire the effort and the cause, but not the means. I, like most people I know, don't register for things on the internet.  I find ways around it, or use BugMeNot.  That said, the reason that I started using WP was because I got to try it out the first time I visited the page.  That was the kicker.  Now, I wasn't an idiot, and I didn't delete an article and replace it with 'boobs'.  But maybe in my early edits, I wrote some unkind things, or did some things that are generally frowned upon in WP.  My point is that new users who are innocently trying things out can have just as much impact on a page as a vandal (they just don't use the word poopy).  Everyone seems to get along just fine deleting these entries, and no one thinks anything of it.  If 256.4.82.61 deletes my article, I'm not offended, and I don't blacklist them.  I just revert and move on. That said, if it ever got to the point that (1) contributors considered leaving WP because of vandals/spammers OR (2) trolls were creating robots to destroy content faster than we could fix it, then I would be for this. -- Sean Kelly 19:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is not vandals. Vandals don't stay that long . The problem is persistent POV pusher and trolls who are here for months/years without ever leaving. In case of vandals, IP can be blocked for a day or two by admins. That's not a problem. In any case, you have a valid point that people like to try out first before they register. Perhaps these restrictions should apply to only controversial religious and political articles like, say, Arab-Israeli pages. The amount of abuse and reverts there are huge, to say the least OneGuy 19:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I might be for selectively locking down pages that have these problems, to be decided by an arbiter. -- Sean Kelly 00:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not a solution. The POV pushers are persistent. They are back as soon as the article is unprotected. What good is an arbiter if the POV pusher is back again with another ID? OneGuy 05:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I feel that the biggest problems are caused by POV pushers who are registered users. I also think some/many people would be put off by being forced to register with an ISP-based account. By the way, I deleted the section above that said Hotmail, Yahoo and gmail addresses reveal the sender's IP address, because I don't think they do. Slim 20:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I should add that I do support the effort to control POV pushers, and I support the intentions behind this proposal. Slim 20:34, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's my point too. The biggest problems are caused by registered users who are POV pushers, not vandals. However, you cannot deal with these people when the only way you can block them is blocking IPs. IPs cannot be blocked for a long time without effecting other users who are using that ISP. They will create several dozen accounts. Please read what I wrote above about But some of the worst users are registered users, not unregistered users. As for hotmail section, they sure do reveal IPs. I know that for sure, given how many trolls/flame wars I have been involved on USENET and email lists for the past several years.  First thing you do is look at the headers. I can tell you for sure all free emails reveal your IP. OneGuy 20:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about gmail showing IP addresses. I've just tried it. It does show an IP address but it's not mine.Slim 21:14, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, send me email from gmail to oneguy_ks at yahoo.co.uk. And I will give your IP, ... or let met test it myself since I have gmail account. I will post the result on talk page OneGuy 21:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose: the strength of this project is the ease with which people can freely take part. If you start making it harder for people to take part in the project they're going to give up and go elsewhere, effectively killing off wikipedia.  Even after removing vandalism and trolling the vast majority of legitimate edits left behind are still made by unregistered users.  Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 22:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's assuming that vast amount of unregistered users (anon is wrong term here; exposing your IP is not "anonymous") won't register. I answered that objection in one of the arguments above. In any case, I don't have a problem with unregistered users per se. I have a problem with persistent POV pushers and trolls who are either unregistered or in most cases registered, but there is no effective way of blocking them if they can create several accounts. They are capable of driving away far better users. Blocking IPs is not a long term solution. OneGuy 22:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You still need to clarify the registration process you're proposing though. Given the above proposed process it would have made registration extremely difficult for me, seeing as I've only ever used a yahoo email address.  I am put of by difficult registration systems on websites: other people will be as well.  Also where are we going to get the extra admins from to respond to the doubtless many emails asking to be verified as users?  (Anons changed to unregistered users in first comment) -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 23:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) This proposal has been rushed too hastily to a vote, especially as the proposal's approval would constitute a major change in practice and philosophy here. I cannot oppose this policy strongly enough -- it violates the idea of the wiki, in my opinion, and would lose us countless contributors.  I never would have edited here without the opportunity I had to test out editing without "signing up".  Don't take it away from others. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose THIS IS AGAINST EVERYTHING WIKIPEDIA STANDS FOR! What use is a free encyclopedia editable by everyone if you need to register and use an ISP-based email to use it! Not all ISPs have free email. By your rules, I couldn't get an account because I use GMail instead of an ISP's account! Luigi30
 * I already answered this email issue in the proposal. I don't mind people opposing, but no solutions to the problems I identified are offered but instead things that I already answered are repeated with no explanation on why are they being repeated OneGuy 06:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. And this is bogus in any case. You appear to have attempted to start a "vote" by stealth - David Gerard 23:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. -- sannse (talk) 00:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) (that's oppose, in case you don't get it)
 * 1) Strong oppose. Sorry Adam–I understand the frustration, having dealt with Shorne over the past few months, but I can't countenance such a restrictive step. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *sigh* This is barely worth commenting on. Stringent sign-up procedures take away the entire nature of Wikipedia, without even tackling the real problem. (So you stop Hotmail accounts counting, but what about ISPs that allow 5, 20, infinite e-mail addresses? What about people with vanity domains? What about Another.com?) I'll stick with the Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles policy, thanks; at least it actually identifies and tackles a real problem... - IMSoP 00:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Posting links to cheap humor doesn't' answer the problems I mentioned. Please respond to the problems I mentioned below on comments section and offer a solution. Anyone can post links to humor, doesn't answer the problems identified here OneGuy 07:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I apeciate the effots that high risk users make to identify themselvesGeni 00:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Mark Richards 00:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: you have not thought your requirements through. You specify "Registration ... by ... any e-mail service where someone cannot create hundreds of accounts," which bars anyone who owns his own domain. ➥the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 01:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem. If someone is creating many emails from his own domain, it can be easily identified by the admins. The problem is only in cases with widely used services like yahoo, hotmail, etc. OneGuy 05:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If that's what the proposal intends, then that's what the proposal should say. However, that's not what the proposal says. It is patently obvious that not enough thought has been given to the wording of this proposal, let alone its destructive effects on our productive and thriving community. ➥the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 14:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, this was some sort of RfC, not absolutely correctly worded "proposal." I first posted it in village pump but didn't get many responses. Later I posted on a talk page of meta.wiki, nothing again. As for your assertion that this proposal will have a "destructive effects on our productive and thriving community", no argument was offered why that would happen OneGuy 15:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You apparently haven't noticed the several kilobytes of arguments against this ill-considered and destructive proposal that fill this page. ➥the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 06:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not when you posted that comment yesterday. What about several kilobytes of arguments that I posted? I haven't seen any reply from you in response to the argument that currently it's impossible to ban the persistent POV pushers/trolls from large ISPs (like AOL) proxies and the destructive effect that might have on wiki by disheartening good editors. OneGuy 12:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I strongly believe that Wikipedia benefits from its open editing policy. Locking the site down in this way will do more harm than good through preventing decent editors joining the site while doing nothing that will stop trolls and POV pushers. Angela. 02:48, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't believe my proposal would "prevent" decent editors from joining the site. The question is how do you get rid of trolls and POV pushers if admins can't block dynamic IPs for more than a day or two? How do you stop these people from creating many accounts? How do you stop more trolls and POV pushers (thousands more) joining wiki as the wikipedia grows? How do you stop them from driving away many good users by disheartening them? No answer was posted by anyone who opposed the proposal. OneGuy 08:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The answer is that you revert. You revert POV pushers over and over and over again.  The theory is that there are more people willing to revert than there are willing to push POV.  As long as that remains true, you don't have to sop thousands of trolls from joining wiki, because you will have millions of troll reverters joining along with them.
 * I've already opposed above. This is just another comment. Something else to bear in mind is the difficulty for people in some countries of obtaining ISP-based accounts. This will be the case in countries that restrict access to the Internet for political reasons, and either don't make these accounts easily available, or monitor them. Even in the UK (where, of course, nothing is monitored), people can still have difficulty getting access to ISP-based accounts as Internet access over there can be spotty and expensive. On the other hand, anyone can walk into an Internet cafe and edit Wikipedia from there, and that's as it should be, in my view, despite the many, many problems it can cause. Also, as someone else said above, many ISPs offer multiple e-mail addresses so even with an ISP-based account, there's no guarantee people will behave. I totally support the desire to drive persistent POV-pushers out of Wikipedia, but there has to be a way to do it without discouraging good editors too, and without excluding large chunks of the world. Slim 00:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I already dealt with this in original proposal. The admins could allow people who don't have valid emails user IDs and monitor their activities for a few days to check if they are not trouble users. They can also examine the IP's history before making the decision. Yes, some ISPs allows more than one e-mail, but I don't think they allow hundreds of accounts like yahoo and hotmail. Even if the proposal I offered doesn't solve the problem completely, it will reduce it enough that remaining cases like these could be easily dealt with. OneGuy 05:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's instruction creep of such a destructive level that I think few users would bother to have done this. I wouldn't. You see, people don't care why we're doing this or that they're more anonymous under a username. They just want to experiment with Wikipedia. As we have told you again and again, very very few users would be here today if this proposal had been implemented from the start. Most if not all of us started out as anonymous users, registering only after a few weeks or months. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Edwin 06:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose. RadicalSubversiv E 07:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly oppose. At the moment we simly don't need this.Wikipedia has grown from nothing into the largest encylopedia in 4 short years. I don't want to do anthing that might slow that growth, and i believe that forcing people to register will do that. The number of trolls and POV pushers is tiny. We should not make policy that will affect thousands in order to deal with the few. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Would Wiki stop growing if people are required to register? We don't know yet. People sign/register for things all the time on the internet. Yahoo messenger, for example, has millions of users. Some e-mail lists have thousands of users. People obviously signed up because they liked/enjoyed it. Some people subscribe to moderated newsgroups but not unmoderated newsgroups because they don't like flame wars/trolls. If flame wars/trolls/POV pusher successfully drive away good editors, isn't that a harm to wiki growth? That argument has no been considered by the opposing view.OneGuy 14:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) This completely goes against what Wikipedia stands for. I'm not too sure about the credibility of this vote either. Most proposals give a few weeks for discussion and make themselves prominent on the pump and community portal. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; things aren't going nearly badly enough to justify this (very draconian) measure --Khendon 13:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly oppose. The proposal would manage to lose the major asset of responsiveness without solving any of WP's really significant issues. Charles Matthews 13:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Regretfully oppose. I can understand your frustration and sympathise with it to a considerable extent, however, apart from the reasons already expressed above, barring unregistered users would cripple the creation of links between articles in the different language Wikipedias -- I am by no means alone in creating links to/from "foreign" Wikipedias, and I certainly haven't gone to the trouble of creating an account on all 20+ Wikipedias I've edited on. I'm the bureaucrat on cy.wikipedia and notice that a large proportion of edits there come from anons creating links, usually to en, but also de, fr, nl, pl, gl and quite a few others. I would suggest the creation of a "recent changes by unregistered users" option would be of assistance in keeping track of unhelpful edits. -- Arwel 13:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are right. Registration should not be required for non english wikipedias because they probably have far less contributors and not many persistent bad users. This is however a growing problem for english wikipedia. Also, an alternative solution could be that if you are registered on one wikipedia, the account is automatically transferred to other languages wikipedia OneGuy 15:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; The edit policy we have now is because Nupedia, with it's "approved" contributors had stalled. Your proposal is a tiny step along the path to stagnation. Trolls, vandals and cranks have been around from the beginning, and for every anonymous vandal putting "poo" in a page about a US president, there's a dozen more anonymous users reverting, correcting and adding good stuff. Sometimes they get bored with poo, and actually start making sensible edits. And even if they don't, good users outnumber and are are more persistent than a kid in his lunch hour on a school PC. There may be more vandalised pages in absolute numbers, but as a fraction of the total, I doubt that they've increased. Plus, I don't bother logging myself in if I'm using a work or library PC Malcolm Farmer 14:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please read the rest of the discussion below. We are not talking about occasional vandals OneGuy 15:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just read Nupedia. Interesting. Of course that kind of policy would lead to stagnation. I didn't propose anything even close to that. OneGuy 15:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It would not be a wiki anymore. Ausir 15:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I refuse on principle to give out my personal email address to avoid spam and other crap. Sorry Wiki, you can't have it. Contributing to Wiki is fun but I don't get sufficient joy to give up my details. On a counterpoint, Wiki has been getting something out of me for free. In end Wiki will lose out if I stop posting. Revmachine21 15:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly, strongly oppose. It would cost us too much and gain us too little.  [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 15:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Extreme strong oppose! If you feel so strongly about this, why not set up your own closed Wiki and see it fail from the lack of contributors! I edited anonymously for months before registering, and sometimes still do for certain articles. This will do zero to stop your concerns and will only kill off potential contributors who don't wan't to register. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\talk]] 15:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How would it do zero to stop my concerns? It will solve the problems I mentioned because instead of blocking a range of dynamic IPs (that can't be blocked for more than a day or two because it blocks all users from that ISP), you will only need to block the ID that is associated with a valid email (which can be blocked for much longer period without effecting other users who are using that ISP, library, internet cafe, university). It obviously solves the problems (or at least reduces them significantly) of persistent POV pushers/flame warriors. If you have a better solution to the problems that do exist (and I am not talking about vandalism, see comments section), please post it OneGuy 17:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's trading one problem for another. While there will be slightly less trolls (only slightly; I can think of a million ways to circumvent this in half an hour without spending a cent), the loss of content will be unmeasurable. For example, once I got a scoutmaster to copyedit Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia. He refused to register (he thought it was necessary to edit), but gladly went ahead once I informed him anyone can edit. You can argue this is an isolated case, but I don't think so. Every time I go on RC patrol, I see hundreds of anons adding lots of obscure information. I think most people choose to remain anonymous for a reason, even if it means exposing their IP. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I already answered that argument about People like anonymity, the will not register in the original proposal. Please read that. As for your assertion that it will only slightly reduce the trolls/POV pushers/flame wars, I don't think that is true. It would significantly reduce the problem though not entirely fix it. Right now there is no solution to the problem of sock puppets and POV pushers. You cannot ban them at all for more than a day or two. How would arbitrators block a transparent proxy IP used by the largest ISP in South Africa without blocking everyone who is using that ISP? This can potentially drive away far more good editors who are disheartened by POV pushers OneGuy 19:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I already read it. This proposal won't reduce determined trolls by much. At least one persistent one has filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission about several editors here. If he's willing to spend that kind of energy doing that, what makes you think he won't use emails on varying free email providers not blocked and his own domains? These trolls have nothing better to do than waste everyone's time. If they get blocked, they will continue. And as I said, most if not all editors who are driven away by POV pushers aren't suited for a sandbox-type of environment of a wiki. You have no idea how many anons this proposal will affect. Most anons who haven't registered haven't registered for a reason. They prefer privacy, even if it means they give up their IP. They prefer the convenience of staying in the background. I predict that most current anons would leave instead of registering if we switched to this proposal's system. In addition, new users would be largely deterred. I edited anonymously for several months before registering. Johnleemk | Talk 19:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree. I believe that banning POV pushers using valid e-mails would significantly reduce the large number of POV pushers/trolls. If someone continues to find new valid emails, he will be quickly banned again. No problem. Right now you can't ban them at all without banning IPs which blocks everyone using that ISP. People like anonymity? As I explained you become far more anonymous to most users once you register, not when you post unregistered using IP. Thirdly, ok so we will lose some people who would refuse to register. What about losing good editors who have worked on many articles but are disheartened by POV pushers and leave? OneGuy 20:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the advantages of hiding behind a username (I've read the relevant guide too). The fact is that a lot of people consider the act of registering itself a hassle. Being allowed to edit without an account gives one a taste of what is to come if he/she registers. Denying them this privilege is denying Wikipedia of new blood. In the end, the losses would outnumber the gains. Johnleemk | Talk 21:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The proponents seem to forget what got us where we are. Eclecticology 17:14, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Baby and Bath water.--Jirate 18:30, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * 3) Ineffective way of dealing with the issue and prevents people who need to experiment before being registered. We need to implement an edit-approval/monitoring system to catch vandalism instead. Jiang 20:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The problems outlined above may become a real issue once Wikipedia grows further.  At this point of time, however, I believe that vandalism and trolling are quite efficiently dealt with.  I might reconsider in the future, when the problem indeed becomes unmanageable, but even then, I do not like the idea of preventing anonymous users from editing.  There must be another way to resolve this.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:13, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose this, but I would support forcing AOL users, and other proxy IPs, to register before contributing. I would never support banning hotmail/gmail/yahoo accounts. For many people, this is their only e-mail provider. Your answer that "they should be able to talk a developer into giving them an account" is not realistic. Rhobite 20:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Strongly.  Most (all?) contributors started out anonymously, and then registered after some edits.  We would get very few new users unless we strongly, painfully, actively promoted registration.  --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 20:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. A major help to me in recruiting editors is that they can immediately edit the article we are discussing.  Most good editors will eventually create an account, to participate in the community.  Without encouraging additional editors wikipedia will eventually be overrun by only bad ones. Pedant 21:08, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * 8) Uber-oppose. I first did some small edits as an anon, then signed up when I wanted to do some more extensive stuff. To quote the movie 28 Days Later, "No, see this is a [beep] idea. You know why? Because it's really obviously a [beep] idea." Jonpin 00:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Requiring registration for some select IP ranges might be acceptable, but forcing everyone to do it is excessive. I think the risks here outweigh the benefits. Aerion 00:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Form your own website if you want to change the rules. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Sorry, I just can't resist replying to rude comments like that. Wiki users will vote and decide whether they want to change rules or not. If you have a problem with that, you can start your own web site OneGuy 03:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This will do little to stop the POV pushers, and there are better ways to deal with the casual vandals.  Others have already pointed out the significant downsides.  I'll also add that I, too, made my first few edits anonymously. Dave6 01:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This would do a great deal to stop persistent POV pushers/trolls because they can be banned indefinitely. If they create another account with a different e-mail, that account again will get banned if they abuse, until they run out of email accounts or until they realize that they have to behave. Right now you cannot ban these people at all if they are using a large ISP like AOL proxy. You have to ban everyone on AOL to ban one abuser. I don't know why people are having hard time understanding the problem OneGuy 03:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. OneGuy, we don't necessarily misunderstand the problem; we oppose this solution. The reason is it substantially changes Wikipedia in order to prevent damage to Wikipedia - and some of us consider that change to be damage to Wikipedia. "He who would give up essential freedoms in exchange for security deserves neither." - Amgine 05:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By "understand" I was referring to Dave6 who apparently didn't understand how this would help in banning persistent POV pushers. I know some others do understand :)) OneGuy 17:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, good motives, horrible proposal.  This would utterly change the nature of Wikipedia. silsor 06:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Sean Curtin 06:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly Oppose.  I think these proposals would destroy the essence of wikipedia.  By having stringent sign-up requirements the community would become semi-closed, which goes against the whole idea of an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. As annoying as anonymous vandals are, I'd rather put up with them than damage the ethos of Wikipedia. Quite frankly I think it is this idea of a freely editable encyclopedia that attracts most wiki-users, veering away from this ethic could possibly do the project more harm than any anonymous vandal could do.Rje 08:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ...you've got to be friggin' kidding. Go look at Wikipedians in order of arrival and see how many people say, i was editing anon for a couple of months and got sucked in. Oh and another thing, i dont have any "valid" email addresses (ie. non-gamil/yahoo etc) and never have had, and qutie possibly never will, so i would never be able to edit on wikimedia again. The bellman 10:25, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 * Both your objections were answered in either the original proposal or the comments below. Please read them. I still want to see an answer to how to permanently ban persistent POV pushers/trolls from large ISP proxies OneGuy 12:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - As stated above, registered POV-pushers who NEVER change their ID and who are taken through the snails pace dispute resolution system are the problem. Your proposal will kill wikipedia, and is against the spirit of wikipedia. Mrfixter 14:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Has anyone mentioned the imminent software improvements coming with MediaWiki 1.4? The ability to mark edits as having "no obvious problems" will dramatically increase the capacity of editors to ferret out poor edits, thus making this draconian move unnecessary. Pcb21| Pete 15:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) NO, NO, NO!! Many highly involved members of the community were once anonymous users and would have been turned away if a registration was required. Vacuum c 15:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't have anything to add to what has already been said. Tuf-Kat 17:41, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Cheesedreams 19:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. While I can see some benefits in disabling edits by unregistered users (as someone who frequently monitors Recent Changes and sees that around 70% of unregistered edits are either spam, vandalism, vanity or a copyright violation) I can also see various problems with doing this. My main concern is with the restrictions to e-mail addresses - as if a user who only has a Hotmail account is going to take the time to contact an admin just so they can register. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 21:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Anti-wiki. --Slowking Man 23:41, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I've seen very good edits by anons. I've seen bad edits by anons. But the consistant POV pushers are almost all registered members. That said, I would have no problem if blocks against ranges of address could exclude all registered members (who are not blocked for some unrelated reason) by a white-list method. It would help if registered members were not blocked from editing in such cases and if anons at those addresses could see some such message as, this block of AOL addresses is currently not enabled to allow editing because of vandalism from these addresses. It might put some pressure on some ISP's. Jallan 02:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. There may come a time when this is the best thing for the community, but it is absolutely not this time.  While I am very frustrated sometimes by the inablity to apply effective blocks or bans, I do not think that this problem is so great that it necessitates registering users and banning anonymous editing.   →Iñgólemo←   (talk)  05:07, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - open access is crucial to the success of Wikipedia. Better "soft security" measures and the forthcoming article review system should be sufficient to render vandals ineffective. -- Karada 14:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - If this had been policy from day one, I would have never been here. And if you are now going to tell me that I'm expendable: well, so is everyone. Who needs Wikipedia, anyway? And most importantly: this would require major justification. Are we overloaded? Is vandalism going unchecked? No. We scale just fine. What Tagishsimon said. I'm not going to be hastily spiteful by saying that if this policy passes, I quit. But that is basically my gut feeling. Ask me again when Wikipedia is ten times as big. Not now. JRM 16:11, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - reason for opposing is same as above. --Hemanshu 18:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Robert Gunning

Robert Gunning may refer to:

 * Sir Robert Gunning, 1st Baronet (1731–1816), British diplomat
 * Robert C. Gunning, professor of mathematics at Princeton University
 * Robert Halliday Gunning (1818–1900), Scottish physician
 * Robert Gunning, American businessman, creator of the Gunning fog index of readability
 * Robert Gunning, musician, guitarist for The Infected
 * Sir Robert Gunning, 3rd Baronet (1795–1862), of the Gunning baronets, MP for Northampton
 * Sir Robert Charles Gunning, 8th Baronet (1901–1989), of the Gunning baronets

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

title: Robert Gunning


text:
Champurrado

Champurrado is a chocolate-based atole, a warm and thick Mexican beverage. It is prepared with either a masa (lime-treated corn dough), masa harina (a dried version of this dough), or corn flour (simply very finely ground dried corn, especially local varieties grown for atole); piloncillo; water or milk; and occasionally containing cinnamon, anise seed, or vanilla. Ground nuts, orange zest, and egg can also be added to thicken and enrich the drink. Atole drinks are whipped up using a wooden whisk called a molinillo. The whisk is rolled between the palms of the hands, then moved back and forth in the mixture, until it is aerated and frothy; a blender may also be used.

Champurrado is traditionally served with a churro in the morning as a simple breakfast or as a late afternoon snack. Champurrado is also very popular during Day of the Dead and at Las Posadas (during the Christmas season), where it is served alongside tamales. Champurrado may also be made with alcohol.

History

Chocolate is native to Mesoamerica, and it was first cultivated by the Mayans and the Mexicas. The Mayans used the cacao beans in various ceremonies such as marriage and trade. Natives drank chocolate with corn puree, or masa. These drinks were thought of as magical and upon drinking, would give the drinker power and strength.

Since sugarcane (originally from Southeast Asia) came to the Americas sometime after Europeans did, chocolate was said to have an acquired taste as it comes off as bitter without added sweetener. The Spaniards created a drink consisting of chocolate, vanilla, and other spices which was served chilled. This drink cannot be compared to modern-day hot chocolate as it was very spicy and bitter, contrasting with the modern notion of very sweet, warm chocolate.

The invention of champurrado shows the adaptation of ancient practices by European colonialists. Upon the production of the drink, special tools like the molinillo were made to assist in the making of the drink which is now also used to make traditional hot chocolate in former Spanish colonies. There are many versions of champurrado in different countries. A unique variant in the Philippines is champorado. Although adapted directly from Mexican champurrado via the Manila galleons, it differs in that it uses whole grains of glutinous rice instead of masa. Instead of a drink, it is a sweet rice porridge traditionally eaten during cold rainy days and in the Christmas season.

Many Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, enjoy champurrado around the holidays when the weather is colder. It differs significantly from hot chocolate in its taste and texture. The taste of the beverage also varies based on how it was made.

Terminology
Champurrado is a type of atole (corn masa drink) with its main characteristic consisting of chocolate. The difference between traditional hot chocolate and champurrado is the use of masa harina (corn flour). Atole is made by toasting masa on a griddle, then adding water that has been boiled with cinnamon sticks. The resulting blends vary in texture, ranging from a porridge to a very thin, liquid consistency. In northern Mexico, a variation is also made using pinole (sweetened toasted corn meal). Although atole is one of the traditional drinks of the Mexican holidays Day of the Dead and Las Posadas, it is very common during breakfast and dinner time at any time of year. In the state Chiapas, it is common for the indigenous Tzotzil people to sell atole. It is usually sold as street food but can be found in various Latin restaurants. The inclusion of chocolate to the atole gives birth to champurrado.

There are many different types of recipes to make champurrado. Different states in Mexico for example, use spices to enhance its taste. Cooking champurrado in a clay pot is also traditional and brings out the flavor even further.

title: Champurrado


text: User talk:69.155.30.74

title: User talk:69.155.30.74


text: Category:1242 births

title: Category:1242 births


text: Category:1248 births

title: Category:1248 births


text: Category:1248 deaths

title: Category:1248 deaths


text:
German Christians (movement)

German Christians (Deutsche Christen) were a pressure group and a movement within the German Evangelical Church that existed between 1932 and 1945, aligned towards the antisemitic, racist, and Führerprinzip ideological principles of Nazism with the goal to align German Protestantism as a whole towards those principles. Their advocacy of these principles led to a schism within 23 of the initially 28 regional church bodies (Landeskirchen) in Germany and the attendant foundation of the opposing Confessing Church in 1934. Siegfried Leffler was a co-founder of the German Christians.

Imperial Germany
During the period of the German Empire, before the Weimar Republic, the Protestant churches (Landeskirchen) in Germany were divided along state and provincial borders. Each state or provincial church was supported by and affiliated with the regnal house—if it was Protestant—in its particular region; the crown provided financial and institutional support to its church. Church and state were therefore, to a large extent, combined on a regional basis. Monarchies of Roman Catholic dynasties also organised church bodies that were territorially defined by their state borders. The same was true for the three republican German states within the pre-1918 Empire. In Alsace-Lorraine the Napoleonic system of établissements publics du culte for the Calvinist, Jewish, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic congregations and umbrellas remained in effect.

Austria-Hungary
Karl Lueger's antisemitic Christian Social Party is sometimes viewed as a model for Adolf Hitler's Nazism. Hitler praised Lueger in his book Mein Kampf as an inspiration. In 1943, Nazi Germany produced the biographical film Vienna 1910 about Lueger, which was given the predicate "special political value".

Weimar Republic
With the end of World War I and the resulting political and social turmoil, the regional churches lost their secular rulers. With revolutionary fervor in the air, the conservative church leaders had to contend with socialists who favoured disestablishment.

After considerable political maneuvering, state churches were abolished (in name) under the new Weimar government, but the anti-disestablishmentarians prevailed in substance: churches remained public corporations and retained their subsidies from the government. Religious instruction in the schools continued, as did the theological faculties in the universities. The rights formerly held by the princes in the German Empire simply devolved to church councils.

Accordingly, in this initial period of the Weimar Republic, the Protestant Church in Germany now operated as a federation of 28 regional (or provincial) churches. The federation operated officially through the representative German Evangelical Church Confederation (Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenbund (DEKB)); the League was itself established in 1922 by the rather loose annual convention called Church General Assembly (Kirchentag), which was composed of the members of the various regional churches. The League was governed and administered by a 36-member Executive Committee (Kirchenausschuss) which was responsible for ongoing governance between the annual conventions of the Kirchentag.

Save for the organisational matters under the jurisdiction of the national League, the regional churches remained independent in other matters, including theology, and the federal system allowed for a great deal of regional autonomy.

Ideology
The German Christians were, for the most part, a "group of fanatically Nazi Protestants." They began as an interest group and eventually came to represent one of the schismatic factions of German Protestantism.

Their movement was sustained and encouraged by factors such as:
 * the 400th anniversary (in 1917) of Martin Luther's publication of the Ninety-five Theses in 1517, an event which endorsed German nationalism, stoked hostility toward foreign peoples, granted Germany a preferred place in the Protestant tradition, and legitimised antisemitism;
 * the antisemitic writings of Martin Luther; cf. On the Jews and Their Lies;
 * the Luther Renaissance Movement of Professor Emmanuel Hirsch; supported by publications by Guida Diehl, the first speaker of the National Socialist Women's League;
 * the revival of völkisch traditions;
 * the de-emphasis of the Old Testament in Lutheran theology, and the partial or total removal of Jewishness from the Bible;
 * the respect for temporal (secular) authority, which had been emphasised by Luther. The movement used scriptural support (Romans 13) to justify this position.

The German Christians were sympathetic to the Nazi regime's goal of "co-ordinating" (see Gleichschaltung) the individual Protestant churches into a single and uniform Reich church, consistent with the Volk ethos and the Führerprinzip.

The editor Professor Wilhelm Knevels of the journal Christentum und Leben (i.e. Christianity and Life) also worked for the "Institute for Research and the Elimination of Jewish influence on German Church Life"—and his journal published articles like "Heroic Christianity" ("Heroisches Christentum", 1935) and "Why not only God? Why Jesus?" ("Warum nicht nur Gott? Warum Jesus?", April 1942).

The "Martin Luther Memorial Church" (Martin-Luther-Gedächtniskirche), which was built in Berlin from 1933 to 1935 included a pulpit that showed the Sermon on the Mount with a Stahlhelm-wearing Wehrmacht soldier listening to Jesus and a baptismal font which featured an SA stormtrooper. The swastikas were removed after the war and the former church has been reconstructed as a memorial to Nazi crimes against humanity.

Under the authority of Alfred Rosenberg and his religious theories the Protestant minister Wilhelm Brachmann established an Institute of Religious Studies as part of the Advanced School of the NSDAP.

Formation
The German Christians were organised as a Kirchenpartei (church party, i.e. a nominating group) in 1931 to help win elections of presbyteries and synods (i.e. legislating church assemblies) in the Evangelical Church of the old-Prussian Union, the largest of the independent Landeskirchen. They were led by Ludwig Müller, a rather incompetent "old fighter" who had no particular leadership skills or qualifications, except having been a longtime faithful Nazi. He was advised by Emanuel Hirsch. In 1931 the book Salvation from chaotic madness by Guida Diehl, the first speaker of the National Socialist Women's League, got an admiring review by the Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte—she was praised for fighting against the "ridicule of Christ" and "showing the way for German Christians". The Berlin section was founded by Wilhelm Kube in 1932. The group achieved no particular notoriety before the Nazi assumption of political power in January 1933. In the Prussian church elections of November 1932, German Christians won one-third of the vote.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933 and the process of Gleichschaltung was in its full sway in the first few months of the regime. In late April 1933 the leadership of the 1922-founded German Evangelical Church Confederation, in the spirit of the new regime, agreed to write a new constitution for a brand new, unitary "national" church, which would be called the German Evangelical Church (Deutsche Evangelische Kirche or DEK). The new and unified national DEK would completely replace and supersede the old federated church with its representative league.

This church reorganisation had been a goal of the German Christians for some time, as such a centralisation would enhance the coordination of Church and State, as a part of the overall Nazi process of Gleichschaltung. The German Christians agitated for Müller to be elected as the new Church's bishop (Reichsbischof).

Bishopric
Müller had poor political skills, little political support within the Church, and no real qualifications for the job, other than his commitment to Nazism and a desire to exercise power. When the federation council met in May 1933 to approve the new constitution, it elected Friedrich von Bodelschwingh as Reichsbischof of the new Protestant Reich Church by a wide margin, largely on the advice and support of the church leadership.

Hitler was infuriated with the rejection of his candidate, and things began to change. By June 1933 the German Christians had gained leadership of some Landeskirchen within the DEK and were, of course, supported by Nazi propaganda in their efforts to reverse the humiliating loss to Bodelschwingh. After a series of Nazi-directed political maneuvers, Bodelschwingh resigned and Müller was appointed as the new Reichsbischof in July 1933.

Aryan paragraph
Further pro-Nazi developments followed the elevation of Müller to the DEK bishopric: in late summer the old-Prussian general synod (led by Müller) adopted the Aryan paragraph, effectively defrocking clergy of Jewish descent and even clergy married to non-Aryans.

With their Gleichschaltungspolitik and their attempts to incorporate the Aryan paragraph into the church constitution so as to exclude Jewish Christians, the German Christians entered into a Kirchenkampf with other evangelical Christians. Their opponents founded the Confessing Church in 1934, which condemned the German Christians as heretics and claimed to be the true German Protestant Church.

Impact

The Nazis found the German Christians useful during the initial consolidation of power, but removed most of its leaders from their posts shortly afterwards; Reichsbischof Müller continued until 1945, but his power was effectively removed in favor of a government agency as a result of his obvious incompetence.

The German Christians were supportive of the Nazi Party's ideas about race. They issued public statements in which they claimed that Christians in Germany with Jewish ancestors "remain Christians in a New Testament sense, but they are not German Christians." They also supported the Nazi Party platform's advocacy of "Positive Christianity", a form of Christianity that did not stress the belief in human sinfulness. Some of them went so far as to call for the total removal of all Jewish elements from the Bible, including the Old Testament. Their symbol was a traditional Christian cross with a swastika in the middle and the group's German initials "D" and "C".

It was claimed and remembered by the German Christians, as a "fact", that the Jews had killed Christ, which appealed to and actively encouraged existing antisemitic sentiments among Christians in Nazi Germany.

19th century
The forerunner of the ideology of the German Christians came from certain Protestant groups of the German Empire. These groups sought a return to perceived völkisch, nationalistic, and racist ideas within traditional Christianity, and looked to turn Christianity in Germany into a reformed intrinsic folk-religion (arteigene Volksreligion). They found their model in the Berlin Hofprediger Adolf Stoecker, who was politically active and tried to position the Christian working-classes and lower-middle-classes against what he perceived as Jewish Überfremdung.

The Bayreuther Blätter devoted its June 1892 issue to a memorial of Paul de Lagarde and it emphatically recommended his work to its readers. Ludwig Schemann, one of the most prolific of Bayreuth Germanics and racists, and later the author of a full-length biography of Lagarde, summarised his life and work and concluded that "for the comprehension of Lagarde's whole being one must above all remember that he always considered himself the prophet and guide of his people — which of course he actually was." For Schemann his legacy consisted largely of his struggle against the Jews: "Not since the days of Schopenhauer and Wagner is the German thinker so mightily opposed this alien people, which desecrates our holy possessions, poisons our people, and seeks to wrest our property from us so as to completely trample on us, as Lagarde has" It was this image of Lagarde, the antisemitic prophet of a purified and heroic Germany, which the political Wagnerites and the Bayreuther Blätter kept alive. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Wagner's son-in-law and intellectual disciple, wrote: "For us, the Deutsche Schriften have for a long time belonged to our most precious books, and we consider Lagarde's unabashed exposure of the inferiority of Semitic religious instincts and the pernicious effects on Christianity as an achievement that deserves our admiration and gratitude."

In 1896 Arthur Bonus advocated a "Germanisation of Christianity". Max Bewer alleged in his 1907 book Der deutsche Christus (The German Christ), Jesus stemmed from German soldiers in the Roman garrison in Galilee and his preaching showed the influence of "German blood". He concluded that the Germans were the best Christians among all peoples, only prevented from the full flowering of their spiritual faculties by the materialistic Jews. Julius Bode, however, concluded that the Christianisation of the Germans was the imposition of an "un-German" religious understanding, and that Germanic feeling remained alien to it and so should remain exempt from it.

20th century
On the 400th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, in 1917, Flensburg pastor Friedrich Andersen, writer Adolf Bartels, and Hans Paul Freiherr von Wolzogen presented 95 Thesen on which a "German Christianity on a Protestant basis" should be founded. It stated: "The newer racial research has finally opened our eyes to the pernicious effects of the blood mixture between Germanic and un-German peoples and urges us, with all our forces, to strive to keep our Volkstum pure and closed. Religion is the inner strength and finest flower in the intellectual life of a people, but it can only strongly affect expression in popular culture ... a deep connection between Christianity and Germanness can only be achieved when it is released from this unnatural connection, wherever it stands nakedly approached by the Jewish religion."

For the authors of the Thesen, the "angry thunder-god" Jehovah was the same as the "Father" and "[Holy] Ghost", that Christ preached and that the Germans would have guessed. Childlike confidence in God and selfless love was, to them, the essence of the Germanic "people's-soul" in contrast to Jewish "menial fear of God" and "materialistic morality." Church was not an "institution for the dissemination of Judaism", and they felt religious and confirmation materials should no longer teach the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments, nor even the New Testament, which they held to be of Jewish influence that had to be "cleaned" so that the child Jesus could be used as a model for "self sacrifice" and "male heroism".

In 1920 minister Karl Gerecke published Biblical anti-Semitism in the Volksverlag of Ernst Boepple, one of the founders of the German Workers' Party.

Dietrich Eckart, an early mentor of Hitler, also emphasised the "manliness" of Jesus Christ and compared him to the Norse god Baldr.

In 1921 Andersen wrote Der deutsche Heiland (The German Saviour), in which he opposed Jewish migration as an apocalyptic decision: Who will win, the six-cornered star or the Cross? — The question is, for now, not yet evident. The Jew goes on his way purposefully, in any case ... his deadly hatred will defeat his opponent. When the Christian Good Friday is celebrated, it should at least not weigh in his dreams; ... otherwise there could come a whole lot of terrible Golgothas, where Jews across the whole world dance their jubilee songs on the grave of Christianity as heirs of a murdering people, singing to the Jahu they destroyed. Against the "contamination by Jewish ideas", mainly from the Old Testament, the Churches and Germany should (he argued) be "mutually benefits and supports", and then Christianity would win back its status as "a religion of the Volk and of the struggle" and "the great exploiter of humanity, the evil enemy of our Volk [would] finally be destroyed".

In the same year, 1921, the Protestant-dominated and völkisch-oriented League for German Churches (Bund für deutsche Kirche) was founded in Berlin. Andersen, pastor Ernst Bublitz, and teacher Kurd Joachim Niedlich brought out the twice-monthly The German Church (Die Deutsche Kirche) magazine, which in 12,000 articles advanced the Bund's ideas. Jesus should be a "tragic-Nordic figure" against the Old Testament's "religious idea", with the Old Testament replaced by a "German myth". Each biblical story was to be "measured under German feelings, so that German Christianity escapes from Semitic influence as Beelzebub did before the Cross."

In 1925 groups such as the Bund united with ten völkisch, Germanophile, and antisemitic organisations to form the German Christian Working Group (deutschchristliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft). The Christian-Spirit Religious Society (Geistchristliche Religionsgesellschaft), founded in 1927 in Nuremberg by Artur Dinter, saw more effect in the churches, striving for the 'de-Judification' (Entjudung) and the building of a non-denominational People's Church (Volkskirche).

The proposed abolition of the Old Testament was in part fiercely opposed among Christian German nationalists, seeing it as a racist attack on the foundations of their faith from inside and outside. Theologian Johannes Schneider, a member of the German National People's Party (Deutschnationale Volkspartei or DNVP) (a party fairly close to the political aims of the NSDAP), wrote in 1925: Whoever cheapens the Old Testament will soon also lose the New.

In 1927 the Protestant Church League (Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenbund) reacted to the growing radicalisation of German Christian groups with a Churches Day in Königsberg, aiming to clarify Christianity's relation to "Fatherland", "Nation", "Volkstum", "Blood", and "Race". Many local church-officers tried to delineate, such as with regards to racism, but this only served to show how deeply it had intruded into their thinking. Paul Althaus, for example, wrote: Volkstum is a spiritual reality ... certainly there will never be a Volkstum without the precondition of, for example, the blood unit. But once a Volkstum is begotten, it may exist as a spiritual reality ... even foreign blood may be lent [in]to it. How great the significance of blood might be in intellectual history, but the rule is, even if one is born into a Volkstum, the spirit and not the blood. On this basis, the radical German-Christians' ideas were hardly slowed down. In 1928 they gathered in Thuringia to found the Thuringian German Christians' Church Movement (Thüringer Kirchenbewegung Deutsche Christen), seeking contact with the Nazi Party and naming their newsletter "Letters to German Christians" (Briefe an Deutsche Christen).

Pagan and anti-Christian trends
Alfred Rosenberg's book The Myth of the Twentieth Century (Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts) resonated in these circles and gave them renewed impetus. His polemic against all "un-German" and "root-stock" elements in Christianity was directed against the Christianity and the denominational organisations of the time. Marxism and Catholic Internationalism were attacked as two facets of the Jewish spirit, and Rosenberg stated the need for a new national religion to complete the Reformation.

The Associated German Religious Movement (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutsche Glaubensbewegung), founded in Eisenach at the end of 1933, was also an attempt to create a national religion outside and against the churches. It combined six earlier Nordic-völkisch oriented groups and a further five groups were represented by individual members. Jakob Wilhelm Hauer became the group's "leader and representative" by acclamation, and other members included philosopher Ernst Bergmann (1881–1945), racial ideologue Hans F. K. Günther, writer Ernst Graf zu Reventlow, historian Herman Wirth, Ludwig Fahrenkrog, and Lothar Stengel-von Rutkowski.

Attempts to "de-Judaise" the Bible
In 1939 with the approval of eleven of the German Protestant regional churches the Eisenacher Institute for the Study and Elimination of Jewish Influence on German Church Life (called the "Dejudaisation Institute") was founded, led by Siegfried Leffler and Walter Grundmann. One of its main tasks was to compile a "People's Testament" (Volkstestament) in the sense of what Rosenberg called a "Fifth Gospel", to announce the myth of the "Aryan Jesus". It became clear in 1994 that the Testament's poetic text was written by the famous ballad-poet and proprietor of the Eugen-Diederichs-Verlag, Lulu von Strauß und Torney. Despite broad church support for it (even many Confessing Christians advocated such an approach, in the hope that the disaffiliation of 1937 to 1940 could be curbed), the first edition of the text did not meet with the expected enthusiastic response.

After 1945
After 1945, the remaining German Christian currents formed smaller communities and circles distanced from the newly formed umbrella of the independent church bodies Protestant Church in Germany. German Christian-related parties sought to influence the historiography of the Kirchenkampf in the so-called "church-historical working group", but they had little effect from then on in theology and politics. Other former members of the German Christians moved into the numerically insignificant religious communities known as the Free People's Christian Church (Freie Christliche Volkskirche) and the People's Movement of Free Church Christians (Volkskirchenbewegung Freie Christen) after 1945.

In 1980, in the context of a statement entitled "Towards Renovation of the Relationship of Christians and Jews (Zur Erneuerung des Verhältnisses von Christen und Juden), the Synod of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland stated that it recognised and "confess, with dismay, the co-responsibility and guilt of German Christians for the Holocaust." On May 6, 2019, eighty years after the founding of the “Dejudaisation Institute”, the Dejudaisation Institute Memorial was unveiled in Eisenach at the behest of eight Protestant regional churches. It is intended to be understood as the Protestant churches’ confession of guilt and as a memorial to the victims of the church’s anti-Judaism and antisemitism.

English

 * (Bergen)
 * Jochen Birkenmeier, Michael Weise (2020): Study and Eradication. The Church’s „Dejudaization Institute“, 1939–1945. Companion Volume to the Exhibition, Stiftung Lutherhaus Eisenach: Eisenach. ISBN 978-3-9818078-5-1
 * (Bergen)
 * Jochen Birkenmeier, Michael Weise (2020): Study and Eradication. The Church’s „Dejudaization Institute“, 1939–1945. Companion Volume to the Exhibition, Stiftung Lutherhaus Eisenach: Eisenach. ISBN 978-3-9818078-5-1
 * Jochen Birkenmeier, Michael Weise (2020): Study and Eradication. The Church’s „Dejudaization Institute“, 1939–1945. Companion Volume to the Exhibition, Stiftung Lutherhaus Eisenach: Eisenach. ISBN 978-3-9818078-5-1

German

 * Friedrich Baumgärtel: Wider die Kirchenkampflegenden; Freimund Verlag 19762 (19591), ISBN 3-86540-076-0
 * Otto Diem: Der Kirchenkampf. Evangelische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus; Hamburg 19702
 * Heiner Faulenbach: Artikel Deutsche Christen; in: 4, 1999
 * Rainer Lächele: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Glaube. Die „Deutschen Christen“ in Württemberg 1925–1960; Stuttgart 1994
 * Kurt Meier: Die Deutschen Christen; Halle 1964 [Standardwerk]
 * Kurt Meier: Kreuz und Hakenkreuz. Die evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich; Munich 20012
 * Klaus Scholder: Die Kirchen und das Dritte Reich
 * Volume 1: Vorgeschichte und Zeit der Illusionen, 1918–1934; Berlin 1977
 * Volume 2: Das Jahr der Ernüchterung 1934; Berlin 1985
 * Günther van Norden u.a. (ed.): Wir verwerfen die falsche Lehre. Arbeits- und Lesebuch zur Barmer Theologischen Erklärung
 * Marikje Smid: Deutscher Protestantismus und Judentum 1932–33; München: Christian Kaiser, 1990; ISBN 3-459-01808-9
 * Hans Prolingheuer: Kleine politische Kirchengeschichte. 50 Jahre evangelischer Kirchenkampf; Cologne: Pahl-Rugenstein, 1984; ISBN 3-7609-0870-5
 * Joachim Beckmann (eds): Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland 1933–1945. It: Evangelische Kirche im Dritten Reich, Gütersloh 1948
 * Julius Sammetreuther: Die falsche Lehre der Deutschen Christen; Bekennende Kirche Heft 15; Munich 19343
 * Leonore Siegele-Wenschkewitz (ed.): Christlicher Antijudaismus und Antisemitismus. Theologische und kirchliche Programme Deutscher Christen; Arnoldshainer Texte Band 85; Frankfurt/M.: Haag + Herchen Verlag, 1994; ISBN 3-86137-187-1
 * it (S. 201–234) Birgit Jerke: Wie wurde das Neue Testament zu einem sogenannten Volkstestament „entjudet“? Aus der Arbeit des Eisenacher „Instituts zur Erforschung und Beseitung des jüdischen Einflusses auf das deutsch kirchliche Leben“

 * Karl Heussi: Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte; Tübingen: Mohr, 198116; ISBN 3-16-141871-9; S. 521–528

title: German Christians (movement)


text: Category:1256 births

title: Category:1256 births


text:
List of Canadian composers

This is a list of composers who are either native to the country of Canada, are citizens of that nation, or have spent a major portion of their careers living and working in Canada. The list is arranged in alphabetical order:

A

 * John Abram (born 1959)
 * Murray Adaskin (1906–2002)
 * Andrew Ager (born 1962)
 * Kati Agócs (born 1975)
 * Lucio Agostini (1913–1996)
 * Robert Aitken (born 1939)
 * J. E. P. Aldous (1853–1934)
 * Gaston Allaire (1916–2011)
 * Émilien Allard (1915–1977)
 * Joseph Allard (1873–1947)
 * Peter Allen (born 1952)
 * Kristi Allik (born 1952)
 * Paul Ambrose (1868–1941)
 * Robert Ambrose (1824–1908)
 * W.H. Anderson (1882–1955)
 * Samuel Andreyev (born 1981)
 * Humfrey Anger (1862–1913)
 * István Anhalt (1919–2012)
 * Paul Anka (born 1941)
 * Louis Applebaum (1918–2000)
 * Violet Archer (1913–2000)
 * John Arpin (1936–2007)
 * Raynald Arseneault (1945–1995)

B

 * Maya Badian (born 1945)
 * Michael Conway Baker (born 1937)
 * Gerald Bales (1919–2002)
 * Steve Barakatt (born 1973)
 * Lesley Barber (born 1968)
 * Milton Barnes (1931–2001)
 * Joseph Beaulieu (1895–1965)
 * William Beauvais (born 1956)
 * Christophe Beck (born 1972)
 * John Beckwith (born 1927)
 * Léon Bernier (1936–2011)
 * Denis Bédard (born 1950)
 * Norma Beecroft (born 1934)
 * Jack Behrens (born 1935)
 * Marc Bélanger (born 1940)
 * Alan Belkin (born 1951)
 * Gilles Bellemare (born 1952)
 * Herbert Belyea (1917–2001)
 * Boris Berlin (1907–2001)
 * Conrad Bernier (1904–1988)
 * Daniel Berthiaume (born 1956)
 * Lorne Betts (1918–1985)
 * Amin Bhatia (born 1961)
 * Jocelyne Binet (1923–1968)
 * Keith Bissell (1912–1992)
 * Lloyd Blackman (born 1928)
 * Patricia Blomfield Holt (1910–2003)
 * Antoine Bouchard (born 1932)
 * Linda Bouchard (born 1957)
 * Victor Bouchard (1926–2011)
 * Adélard Joseph Boucher (1835–1912)
 * Lydia Boucher (1890–1971)
 * Walter Boudreau (born 1947)
 * Ned Bouhalassa (born 1962)
 * Denys Bouliane (born 1955)
 * Pierre Brabant (1925–2014)
 * Timothy Brady (born 1956)
 * Henry Brant (1913–2008)
 * Jean-Chrysostome Brauneis I (1785–1832)
 * Jean-Chrysostome Brauneis II (1814–1871)
 * Annie Glen Broder (1857–1937)
 * Alexander Brott (1915–2005)
 * Stephen Brown (born 1948)
 * Edwin Orion Brownell (born 1964)
 * Walter Buczynski (born 1933)
 * John Burge (born 1961)
 * John Burke (1951–2020)

C

 * Howard Cable (1920–2016)
 * Christian Calon (born 1950)
 * Amice Calverley (1896–1959)
 * Allison Cameron (born 1963)
 * Nicole Carignan (born 1952)
 * Bruce Carlson (born 1944)
 * Albertine Caron-Legris (1906–1972)
 * Pat Carrabré (born 1958)
 * Marius Cayouette (1904–1985)
 * Albert Chamberland (1886–1975)
 * Claude Champagne (1891–1965)
 * Caleb Chan (born 1988)
 * Dorothy Chang (born 1970)
 * Alexander Chuhaldin (1892–1951)
 * Gustav Ciamaga (born 1930)
 * Chan Ka Nin (born 1949)
 * Derek Charke (born 1974)
 * Benoît Charest (born 1964)
 * Stephen Chatman (born 1950)
 * Brian Cherney (born 1942)
 * Neil Chotem (1920–2008)
 * Dolores Claman (1927–2021)
 * F. R. C. Clarke (1931–2009)
 * James P. Clarke (1807/8–1877)
 * Donald Alexander Cochrane (born 1928)
 * Bruce Cockburn (born 1945)
 * Stephen Codman (c. 1796–1852)
 * Warren Cohen (born 1954)
 * Leonard Cohen (1934–2016)
 * Michael Colgrass (1932–2019)
 * Ron Collier (1930–2003)
 * Alexis Contant (1858–1918)
 * Steph Copeland
 * Jean Coulthard (1908–2000)
 * Guillaume Couture (1851–1915)
 * Richard Covey (born 1979)
 * Larry Crosley (1932–1998)
 * Gabriel Cusson (1903–1972)

D

 * Jimmy Dale (1935–2017)
 * Eleanor Joanne Daley (born 1955)
 * Omar Daniel (born 1960)
 * Jeff Danna (born 1964)
 * Mychael Danna (born 1958)
 * Yves Daoust (born 1946)
 * Lionel Daunais (1901–1982)
 * Raymond Daveluy (1926–2016)
 * Sarah Davachi (born 1987)
 * Hugh Davidson (born 1930)
 * Victor Davies (born 1939)
 * Morris Davis (1904–1968)
 * Stu Davis (1921–2007)
 * Gordon Delamont (1918–1981)
 * Isabelle Delorme (1900–1991)
 * Allard de Ridder (1887–1966)
 * Jean Derome (born 1955)
 * Alfred De Sève (1858–1927)
 * Jacques Desjardins
 * Jean Deslauriers (1909–1978)
 * Robert Nathaniel Dett (1882–1943)
 * Alan Detweiler (1926–2012)
 * Keiko Devaux
 * Zosha Di Castri (born 1985)
 * Paul Dolden (born 1956)
 * Samuel Dolin (1917–2002)
 * Emily Doolittle (born 1972)
 * Margaret Drynan (1915–1999)
 * René Dupéré (born 1946)
 * Kyle Bobby Dunn (born 1986)

E

 * Colin Eatock (born 1958)
 * Sophie Carmen Eckhardt-Gramatté (1899–1974)
 * Anne Eggleston (1934–1994)
 * Arne Eigenfeldt (born 1962)
 * Carleton Elliott (1928–2003)
 * Lisle Ellis (born 1951)
 * John Estacio (born 1966)
 * José Evangelista (born 1943)

F

 * Percy Faith (1908–1976)
 * Robert Farnon (1917–2005)
 * Jacques Faubert (born 1952)
 * Robert Fleming (1921–1976)
 * John Fodi (1944–2009)
 * Alexandra Fol (born 1981)
 * Clifford Ford (born 1947)
 * Malcolm Forsyth (1936–2011)
 * W. O. Forsyth (1859–1937)
 * Achille Fortier (1864–1939)
 * David Foster (born 1949)
 * Joseph-A. Fowler (1845–1917)
 * Jason Frederick (born 1970)
 * Harry Freedman (1922–2005)
 * Susan Frykberg (born 1954)
 * Darren Fung
 * Vivian Fung (born 1975)

G

 * Kim Gaboury aka aKido (born 1976)
 * Gérald Gagnier (1926–1961)
 * J.-J. Gagnier (1885–1949)
 * René Gagnier (1892–1951)
 * Alain Gagnon (1938–2017)
 * André Gagnon (1936–2020)
 * Ernest Gagnon (1834–1915)
 * Gustave Gagnon (1842–1930)
 * Henri Gagnon (1887–1961)
 * Serge Garant (1929–1986)
 * Mort Garson (1924–2008)
 * Desmond Gaspar (born 1970)
 * James Gayfer (1916–1997)
 * James Gelfand, (born 1959)
 * Steven Gellman (born 1947)
 * Eric Genuis (born 1967)
 * Graham George (1912–1993)
 * Aaron Gervais (born 1980)
 * Richard Gibson (born 1953)
 * Allan Gilliland (born 1965)
 * Srul Irving Glick (1934–2002)
 * Denis Gougeon (born 1951)
 * Maxime Goulet (born 1980)
 * Glenn Gould (1932–1982)
 * Hector Gratton (1900–1970)

H

 * Peter Hannan (born 1953)
 * Hagood Hardy (1937–1997)
 * Chris Harman (born 1970)
 * Johana Harris (1912–1995)
 * Charles A.E. Harriss (1862–1929)
 * Christos Hatzis (born 1953)
 * John Hawkins (1944–2007)
 * Donald Heins (1878–1949)
 * Jacques Hétu (1938–2010)
 * W. H. Hewlett (1873–1940)
 * Jim Hiscott (born 1948)
 * Alice Ping Yee Ho (born 1960)
 * Bruce Holder (1905–1987)
 * Derek Holman (born 1931)
 * Anna Höstman (born 1972)
 * Charles Houdret (1905-after 1964)
 * Melissa Hui (born 1966)
 * Richard Hunt (1930–2011)
 * Ricky Hyslop (1915–1998)

I

 * Scott Irvine (born 1953)
 * Airat Ichmouratov (born 1973)

J

 * David Jaeger (born 1947)
 * Rhené Jaque (1918–2006)
 * Frantz Jehin-Prume (1839–1899)
 * Otto Joachim (1910–2010)
 * Richard Johnston (1917–1997)
 * Charles Jones (1910–1997)
 * Kelsey Jones (1922–2004)
 * Michael Jones (born 1942)

K

 * James Keelaghan (born 1959)
 * Jack Kane (1924–1961)
 * Udo Kasemets (1919–2014)
 * Iain Kelso (born 1975)
 * Talivaldis Kenins (1919–2008)
 * Julien Knafo
 * Moe Koffman (1928–2001)
 * Gary Koftinoff
 * Rudolf Komorous (born 1931)
 * Peter Paul Koprowski (born 1947)
 * Nikolai Korndorf (1947–2001)
 * Mark Korven
 * Veronika Krausas (born 1963)
 * David Kristian (born 1967)
 * Gary Kulesha (born 1954)
 * Alfred Kunz (1929–2019)
 * Larysa Kuzmenko (born 1956)
 * Milan Kymlicka (1936–2008)

L

 * Larry Lake (1943–2013)
 * Jean-Baptiste Labelle (1825–1898)
 * Fariborz Lachini (born 1949)
 * Alfred La Liberté (1882–1952)
 * Alcides Lanza (born 1929)
 * Eugène Lapierre (1899–1970)
 * Yves Lapierre (born 1946)
 * Anne Lauber (born 1943)
 * Louis-Phillipe Laurendeau (1861–1916)
 * Rachel Laurin (born 1961)
 * Calixa Lavallée (1842–1891)
 * Jimmie LeBlanc (born 1977)
 * Hugh Le Caine (1914–1977)
 * Brent Lee (born 1964)
 * Alain Lefèvre (born 1962)
 * Simon Leoza
 * André Éric Létourneau (born 1967)
 * Omer Létourneau (1891–1983)
 * Gordon Lightfoot (born 1938)
 * Nicole Lizée (born 1973)
 * Analia Llugdar (born 1972)
 * Andrew Lockington (born 1972)
 * Ruth Lomon (born 1930)
 * Michel Longtin (born 1946)
 * Alexina Louie (born 1949)
 * Clarence Lucas (1866–1947)
 * Ramona Luengen (born 1960)
 * René Lussier (born 1957)

M

 * Andrew Paul MacDonald (born 1958)
 * David MacIntyre (born 1952)
 * Ernest MacMillan (1893–1973)
 * Walter MacNutt (1910–1996)
 * Robert Graham Manson (1883–1950)
 * Leo Marchildon (born 1962)
 * Frank Marsales (1886–1975)
 * Charles-Amador Martin (1648–1711)
 * Lucien Martin (1908–1950)
 * Stephanie Martin
 * Gene Martynec (born 1947)
 * Bruce Mather (born 1939)
 * André Mathieu (1929–1968)
 * Rodolphe Mathieu (1890–1962)
 * Roger Matton (1929–2004)
 * Michael Matthews (born 1950)
 * Christopher Mayo (born 1980)
 * Michael McCann (born 1976)
 * Boyd McDonald (born 1932)
 * Diana McIntosh (born 1937)
 * Allan McIver (1904–1969)
 * Ben McPeek (1934–1981)
 * Colin McPhee (1900–1964)
 * Lubomyr Melnyk (born 1948)
 * Pierre Mercure (1927–1966)
 * Alfred Mignault (1895–1961)
 * Cassandra Miller (born 1976)
 * Elma Miller (born 1954)
 * David Mills (1926–2020)
 * John Mills-Cockell (born 1943)
 * Kenneth G. Mills (1923–2004)
 * Robin Minard (born 1953)
 * Henri Miro (1879–1950)
 * Joni Mitchell (born 1943)
 * Stephan Moccio (born 1972)
 * Theodore Frederic Molt (1795–1856)
 * James Montgomery (born 1943)
 * Oskar Morawetz (1917–2007)
 * François Morel (1926–2018)
 * Éric Morin (born 1969)
 * Léo-Pol Morin (1892–1941)
 * Albertine Morin-Labrecque (1886 or 1890–1957)
 * Jocelyn Morlock (1969–2023)
 * Marjan Mozetich (born 1948)

N

 * Phil Nimmons (1923–2024)
 * Jordan Nobles (born 1969)
 * Robert Normandeau (born 1955)
 * Farangis Nurulla-Khoja (born 1972)

O

 * Oscar O'Brien (1892–1958)
 * Michael Oesterle (born 1968)
 * John Oliver (born 1959)
 * Charles O'Neill (1882–1964)
 * John Oswald (born 1953)

P

 * Owen Pallett (born 1979)
 * Jean Papineau-Couture (1916–2000)
 * Donald Patriquin (born 1938)
 * Alex Pauk (born 1945)
 * Trevor W. Payne (born 1948)
 * Kenneth Peacock (1922–2000)
 * Paul Pedersen (born 1935)
 * Frédéric Pelletier (1870–1944)
 * Romain Pelletier (1875–1953)
 * Romain-Octave Pelletier I (1843–1927)
 * Oscar Peterson (1925–2007)
 * Barbara Pentland (1912–2000)
 * Clermont Pépin (1926–2006)
 * Michel Perrault (born 1925)
 * Jean Piché (born 1951)
 * Dave Pierce (born 1972)
 * Randolph Peters (born 1959)
 * Benoît Poirier (1882–1965)
 * Ari Posner (born 1970)
 * Paul Pratt (1894–1967)
 * Albert Pratz (1914–1995)
 * André Prévost (1934–2001)
 * Erica Procunier
 * Harry Puddicombe (1870–1953)

Q

 * Donald Quan (born 1962)
 * Joseph Quesnel (1746–1809)

R

 * Allan Rae (born 1942)
 * Imant Raminsh (born 1943)
 * Evelin Ramón (born 1979)
 * Jan Randall (born 1952)
 * Eldon Rathburn (1916–2008)
 * Elizabeth Raum (born 1945)
 * John Rea (born 1944)
 * William Reed (1859–1945)
 * Bill Richards (1923–1995)
 * Abigail Richardson-Schulte (born 1976)
 * Godfrey Ridout (1918–1984)
 * Doug Riley (1945–2007)
 * André Ristic (born 1972)
 * Normand Roger (born 1949)
 * Stan Rogers (1949–1983)
 * James Rolfe (born 1961)
 * Ivan Romanoff (1914–1997)
 * Clark Ross (born 1957)
 * Myke Roy (born 1950)
 * Stéphane Roy (born 1959)
 * Terry Rusling (1931–1974)
 * Welford Russell (c.1901–1975)
 * Jeffrey Ryan (born 1962)

S

 * Marc Sabat (born 1965)
 * Charles Wugk Sabatier (1819–1862)
 * Patrick Saint-Denis (born 1975)
 * Micheline Coulombe Saint-Marcoux (1938–1985)
 * Herbert Sanders (1878–1938)
 * Armando Santiago (born 1932)
 * Vahram Sargsyan (born 1981)
 * Charles Sauvageau (1807–1849)
 * R. Murray Schafer (1933–2021)
 * Oliver Schroer (1956–2008)
 * Ernest Seitz (1892–1978)
 * Paul Shaffer (born 1949)
 * Rodney Sharman (born 1958)
 * Howard Shore (born 1946)
 * Bekah Simms (born 1990)
 * Gordon Slater (born 1950)
 * Anita Sleeman (1930–2011)
 * Linda Catlin Smith (born 1957)
 * Leo Smith (1881–1952)
 * Ana Sokolovic (born 1968)
 * Harry Somers (1925–1999)
 * Ann Southamt (1937–2010
 * David Squires (born 1957)
 * Andrew Staniland (born 1977)
 * Paul Steenhuisen (born 1965)
 * Ben Steinberg (born 1930)
 * Donald Steven (born 1945)
 * Tobin Stokes (born 1966)
 * Fred Stone (1935–1986)
 * Timothy Sullivan (born 1954)
 * Norman Symonds (1920–1998)
 * Boleslaw Szczeniowski (1898–1995)
 * Chiyoko Szlavnics (born 1967)

T

 * Robert Talbot (1893–1954)
 * Georges-Émile Tanguay (1893–1964)
 * Nancy Telfer (born 1950)
 * Oscar Ferdinand Telgmann (1855–1946)
 * Steve Tittle (born 1935)
 * Peter Togni (born 1959)
 * Roman Toi (1916–2018)
 * Jerry Toth (1928–1999)
 * Rudy Toth (1925–2009)
 * Bramwell Tovey (born 1953)
 * Jiří Traxler (1912–2011)
 * Amédée Tremblay (1876–1949)
 * George Tremblay (1911–1982)
 * Gilles Tremblay (1932–2017)
 * Barry Truax (born 1947)
 * Robert Turner (1920–2012)
 * Ian Tyson (born 1933)

U

 * Owen Underhill (born 1954)

V

 * Jean Vallerand (1915–1994)
 * Randy Vancourt (born 1961)
 * Stéphane Venne (born 1941)
 * Benoît Verdickt (1884–1970)
 * Joseph Vézina (1849–1924)
 * Albert Viau (1910–2001)
 * Michael Vincent (composer) (born 1976)
 * Claude Vivier (1948–1983)
 * Augustus Stephen Vogt (1861–1926)
 * Calvin Vollrath (born 1960)
 * Joachim Ulrich Voyer (1892–1935)

W

 * Arnold Walter (1902–1973)
 * Ruth Watson Henderson (born 1932)
 * Rufus Wainwright (born 1973)
 * John Weinzweig (1913–2006)
 * Frank Welsman (1873–1952)
 * John Welsman (born 1955)
 * Hildegard Westerkamp (born 1946)
 * Dinuk Wijeratne (born 1978)
 * Eric Wild (1910–1989)
 * Rick Wilkins (born 1937)
 * Healey Willan (1880–1968)
 * Charles Wilson (born 1931)
 * Scott Wilson (born 1969)
 * Édouard Woolley (1916–1991)
 * John Wyre (1941–2006)

Y

 * Kathleen Yearwood (born 1958)
 * Gayle Young (born 1950)
 * Neil Young (born 1945)

Z

 * Maurice Zbriger (1896–1981)
 * Rui Shi Zhuo (born 1956)
 * Joel Zimmerman (born 1981)
 * León Zuckert (1904–1992)

title: List of Canadian composers


text:
Talk:Restoration

Cultural understanding of Restoration
I just noticed that their seems to be a cultural different understanding of the term restoration. As the german and swiss understanding seems to point mainly to the period between 1814 and 1843 (1848). I haven't found in any other source which refers to the time mentioned in the article "after 1948" as restoration. I hope I will have some spare time to clarify this and to update the page.

title: Talk:Restoration


text: Category:1257 births

title: Category:1257 births


text:
BR-277 (Brazil highway)

BR-277 is a federal highway of Brazil, across the state of Paraná, between the town of Paranaguá and Foz do Iguaçu.

Economic importance
The highway has high economic importance for Brazil and even for Paraguay, as it connects the Brazil-Paraguay border with Port of Paranaguá. On the border there is intense trade between the two countries; there is great tourism in the Foz do Iguaçu area due to the border trade and mainly because of the Iguaçu Falls. In Paraná, there is a large production of soy, corn, chicken, milk, cellulose and fish, among other products (which are exported in Paranaguá), and Paraguay uses the port to carry out part of its exports.

Duplications
The highway is duplicated in the 140 km between the Port of Paranaguá, Curitiba and the junction with the BR-376.

BR-277, as well as BRs 369 and 376, which form a triangle within the state of Paraná, were granted to private companies in 1997, at the beginning of the era of road concessions in Brazil. The contracts are valid until 2021. Initially, 995 km of roads in Paraná should be duplicated, and the population was promised that the State would have First World highways, strongly boosting economic growth. But additions were soon signed that removed duplications and other works from the contracts. The duplication commitment fell from 995 to 616 km. To make matters worse, in 2019, what had been doubled was no more than 300 km, even with toll rates rising every year. The MPF (Federal Public Ministry) then carried out Operation Integration, which showed that the changes made to the contracts are part of a millionaire kickback scheme. The companies paid at least R $ 35 million in fees to achieve these changes in contracts. The estimated diversion of money in the toll system amounts to R $ 8.4 billion. Some of those cited by the MPF to receive these fees are: Jaime Lerner, Roberto Requião and Beto Richa, all former governors of the State of Paraná, and the concessionaires Rodonorte, Econorte, Ecovía, Ecocataratas, Caminhos do Paraná and Viapar.

For the next concession, to take place in 2021, the Federal Government, under the command of Jair Bolsonaro, and the Government of the State of Paraná, under the command of Ratinho Júnior, intend, together, adopt a model with lower tariffs, ensure that duplications occur quickly, and also ensure transparency in spending.

Main Cities

 * km 0 Paranaguá (km 730 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 90 Curitiba (km 640 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 130 Campo Largo (km 600 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 215 Ponta Grossa (km 515 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 250 Irati (km 480 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 360 Guarapuava (km 370 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 460 Laranjeiras do Sul (km 270 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 595 Cascavel (km 135 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 670 Medianeira (km 60 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 710 Santa Terezinha de Itaipu (km 20 from Foz do Iguaçu)
 * km 730 Foz do Iguaçu

title: BR-277 (Brazil highway)


text: Category:1257 deaths

title: Category:1257 deaths


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln statue in the Lincoln memorial

Lincoln statue in the Lincoln memorial
Nominating this image for promotion and the current FP of this statue (which I feel is vastly inferior) for demotion. I would've put the other of nominations for removal but I though it best to keep them together. I plan to use it on Lincoln Memorial when it the other image is demoted. ed g2s •  talk  19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nominate, support promotion, support demotion. ed g2s  •  talk  19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the current FP is grainy, flat and boring. As a photo it has nothing to it other than its subject matter, which although very encyclopaedic, doesn't meet featured picture standards. ed g2s  •  talk  00:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion - I like the original better. Dunc|☺ 21:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, support demotion. The replacement looks like it has been worked too hard to make it look like art. I like the original a bit better which just shows Lincoln as it is, but do agree that it is not brilliant either. Janderk 00:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose  demotion. Current F.P. is better. Current FP is grainy, yes, but a much better angle of view. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:12, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your votes by using support/oppose promotion, support/oppose demotion as this is a double vote.. ed g2s  •  talk  17:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Done -- Chris 73 Talk 23:52, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, support demotion. Original is boring, the new one is not perfect but still a great image. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, oppose demotion; no reason not to have two, and the current one isn't bad, even if it is a little boring. James F. (talk) 19:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "not bad" and "a little boring" aren't the descriptions you'd expect of a featured picture... ed g2s  •  talk  03:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, oppose demotion. [I agree with] James F. ... They're different images that say different things about the same subject. - RedWordSmith 00:25, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. People, do we really need two Featured pictures of the exact same statue? Please look at this from an international viewpoint as well, is it really so interesting as to require TWO featured pictures. I think we should regards these two pictures as different versions of the same image, and select only one of them. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see any conflict between having two pictures of this subject and our international scope. Would we say no to two featured pictures of the Taj Mahal or the Eiffel Tower? I hope not. - RedWordSmith 22:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, support demotion. I agree, ... Both pictures are nice but only the new one is FP quality. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 22:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion. - The current FP is a neutral picture: centered, distant view, evenly lit; while the new one is designed to be more emotional: off center, very dark background, very bright middleground, view looking up from his feet. A nice picture, but one that is framed and lit to invoke a sense of reverence. --Elijah 22:43, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * i.e. it captures the intentions of the statue. ed g2s  •  talk  00:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If that is the intention of the statue, then it should speak (metaphorically) for itself, and not require subjective photography. --Elijah 00:44, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
 * support promotion, oppose demotion. The demotion part has gotten a little out of hand while we seem to have pretty good consensus for support. I propose we finish the process of nominating this one on its own merits, and then do a VFD for the old one at the bottom of this page, independent of this process, where we can evaluate the picture and context more thoroughly. Matthewcieplak 01:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion. Oppose this nomination at this time because we already have a featured picture of that subject from roughly the same viewpoint. And, of course this is not the way to delist any standing featured picture.  Use the process first of delisting the current image, and then nominate the new image (you can use the new image's existance in the rationale to delist the standing featured image). - Bevo 18:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, support demotion. While not as impressive as a thumb, the full-size "war president" photo makes Lincoln jump off the screen -- his hands and eyes seem caught in the middle of a gesture.  The current FP is serviceable, but hardly comparable in my eyes. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, support demotion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, neutral demotion. Support promotion of "war president" beautiful contrast and focuse. Magnificent sculpture.--Fir0002 04:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I agree with Elijah - the old one is balanced and neutral, whereas the new one is taken from a angle that makes it nigh-impossible to know what you are looking at; the intentionally high contrast washes out the color of the marble. Basically, most of the informative use has been lost in order to make this more picture more chique. →Raul654 09:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion. agree with Raul654. Enochlau 21:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly the first is more plain and neutral, but is it "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating"? I can understand if you think the new one is too emotive (although this never seemed to be a problem when promoting "cute" pictures of fluffy little animals :)), but the old one is just boring. ed g2s  •  talk  04:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I've thrown a wrench into the works by uploading an enhanced/brightened version of Raul's photograph. The other one is a little too stark and lifeless; I prefer the subtle coloration in the original. -- Wapcaplet 05:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Your version has blurred it a bit, and overexposed some areas. I don't the original has enough infromation to make a decent image out if it. Not enough light. ed g2s  •  talk  02:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, neutral demotion. --MarkSweep 08:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * support promotion, support demotion. User:Wapcaplet's increased contrast version of Raul654's photo definately helps and in many ways it is the more acurate depiction. The new image from vxdigital is perhaps a little overly dramatic, but it works quite well. I particularly like the subtle inclusion of the text on the back wall. There is a minor technical problem in that it isn't actually used on any article, but I guess the intention is to replace the image on Lincoln Memorial whilst leaving the original photo on Abraham Lincoln. -- Solipsist 23:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I too think this one tries too hard to look like art -Lommer | talk 09:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Summary- This is confusing. To sort out the voting, I'm now going to refactor each comment to clearly show support/oppose promotion of the first image, then support/oppose demotion of the previous image. If I have got your vote wrong, please let me know (especially as there were a couple I wasn't even sure were votes). -- Solipsist 16:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * New picture, Not promoted  +11 / -9
 * Previous picture, Not demoted  +7 / -11 / 2 neutral
 * -- Solipsist 16:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)