text:
Wigton

Wigton is a market town in Cumberland, Cumbria, England. It lies just outside the Lake District. Wigton is at the centre of the Solway Plain, between the Caldbeck Fells and the Solway coast. It is served by Wigton railway station on the Cumbrian Coast Line, and the A596 road to Workington. The town of Silloth-on-Solway lies 12 mi to the west, beyond Abbeytown.

Etymology
Wigton is "Wicga's tūn". "Wicga" is an Old English pre-7th-century personal name meaning "a beetle" (as in "earwig"), while "tūn" is Old English for a demarcated plot, a "homestead" or "village", so Wigton is "the hamlet belonging to Wicga".

History
On the River Wampool and Wiza Beck (beck being a dialect word meaning "brook" or "stream" – from the Old Norse bekkr), the market town of Wigton is an ancient settlement and evolved from a pre-medieval street plan, which can still be traced today.

The Romans had a cavalry station, Maglona, known locally as Old Carlisle, just to the south of the town with a large vicus (civilian settlement) associated with it. The fort was approximately half-way between Carlisle and the Roman settlement of Derventio (now known as Papcastle), linked by the Roman road that is now the A595. From this location they could react to incursions from north of Hadrian's Wall, using the Roman road to sally east or west before traversing northward across the countryside.

In the period of late antiquity after Roman rule, Wigton was within the native British kingdom of Rheged. Probably of Anglian origin, Wigton was an established settlement in the Kingdom of Northumbria long before the Normans arrived in the area. Wigton and most of then Cumberland were a part of Scotland in 1086 when the Domesday Book was written for William I, so are not included in it.

The Norman invaders created the County of Carlisle, building Carlisle Castle in Carlisle in 1092 for its administrative centre. Odard de Logis became William II's Sheriff of Carlisle and was made Baron of Wigton about 1100 AD when it became a Norman barony. Wigton gained its market charter in 1262. The de Logis barons changed their surname to de Wigton around 1208 but the male line of the family died out in 1348, so the manor passed to the Barony of Cockermouth. Although the town's layout is generally Anglian or medieval, its architecture is mainly in the 18th-century Georgian style which remains largely intact.

In the middle of Wigton's market place is the George Moore Memorial Fountain built in 1872; of particular interest are the four bronzes around the fountain, the work of the Pre-Raphaelite sculptor Thomas Woolner. These depict the "four acts of mercy". St Mary's Church dates from 1788, but there was a church on this site from the 12th century. (source: 'A New Illustrated History of Wigton' )

A private secondary school, the Wigton School (also called the Friends' School or Brookfield) was founded to the north of the town in 1815 with an initial enrolment of eight pupils. After reaching a maximum enrolment of 250 or so in the 1970s and 1980s, the school closed, following sustained drop-off in student numbers and, finally, damage by fire.

The appearance of the church owes much to the vision of Rev John Ford (father of the broadcaster Anna Ford) in the 1950s, when he had gravestones laid flat and the interior painted in the present colours. Highmoor Bell tower, built during the Industrial Revolution and completed in 1887, played tunes three times daily.

Fiddleback Farm
Fiddleback Farm, a Grade II* listed building, is situated approximately 100 yards to the west of the A595. Its site was used, amongst other purposes, for supplying provisions and materials from "Old Carlisle" to Hadrian's Wall. It is thought that the farm site was the first "Mile Station" from Old Carlisle. Regarding Fiddleback, the building was originally fortified to repel invading Celts. It later become a place of worship. Constructed in the shape of a fiddle, it was built about 300 years ago, along with two other buildings in the shape of musical instruments by a wealthy and eccentric land-owner. During renovation works, the skeleton of a cat was discovered above one of the old entrance doorways. Another Grade 2 listed building, constructed in the shape of an accordion, still stands. A third, built in the shape of a banjo, was demolished for unknown reasons in the 1920s.

Geography
Wigton today is a market town, with livestock auctions being held regularly at Hopes Auction Company. The main employer is Innovia Films.

The town has its own secondary school, called The Nelson Thomlinson School, which is a comprehensive with close links to the Innovia factory.

In 2004 the town was the first settlement in the United Kingdom to enforce a curfew on teenagers under the age of 16. It was in place for two weeks, and its aim was to reduce the amount of vandalism in the town centre. It followed nightly vandalism campaigns, which included smashed shop fronts, as well as intimidation of elderly members of the community. The curfew attracted national attention, with the local secondary school receiving visits from agencies such as Sky News. It had some effect, with less vandalism taking place ever since.

Industry
Wigton's principal employer is the Innovia Films Ltd (locally known as The Factory) in the centre of the town. In 1936 the British New Wrap Co Ltd was formed in Wigton, Cumberland, and production of cellulose film began at the site which had previously been a jam-making facility, and then set up to produce "artificial silk" or Rayon. In 1936 the company changed its name to British Rayophane Ltd. The company's main products are:
 * Labels and graphics
 * Cellophane and Propafilm – bubble-produced BOPP film
 * Substrates for plastic banknotes – used for multiple currencies worldwide including the new British polymer banknotes
 * Plastic labels – replacing paper labels due to their resistance to tearing, scuffing and water damage. Clear labels are especially popular as they give the 'upmarket' appearance of graphics printed directly onto a bottle or container
 * UV-resistant films – for promotional and POS/POP graphics

Wigton is the headquarters of the British National Party.

Media
Local news and television programmes are provided by BBC North East and Cumbria and ITV Border. Television signals are received from the nearby Caldbeck TV transmitter located south east of the town. Local radio stations are BBC Radio Cumbria on 95.6 FM and Greatest Hits Radio Cumbria & South West Scotland on 96.4 FM. The town is served by the local newspaper, Times & Star (formerly The Cumberland News).

Notable people

 * Richard Bell, cricketer
 * Melvyn Bragg, writer and broadcaster was born and lived his early life in the town and, when raised to the peerage, took Lord Bragg of Wigton as his title
 * Jarrad Branthwaite, footballer, plays for Everton F.C.
 * Charles Dickens, visited the town, and it was subsequently mentioned in The Two Idle Apprentices
 * Anna Ford, broadcaster, was brought up in Wigton
 * Thomas Holliday, one of a handful of Dual-code rugby internationals
 * William Perry Briggs, Medical Officer of Health to Wigton Rural District Council (188?–1928)
 * Robert Smirke, artist, born in Wigton
 * Roger Liddle, Baron Liddle, elected to Cumbria County Council for the Wigton Division.

title: Wigton


text:
Talk:Executor

Check for Accuracy: Duty of Executor to offer will for probat
I put in the bit about the executor being the person to offer the will for probate. If there are jurisdictions where this is not so, please indicate. Ellsworth 01:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

England and Wales Administration of Estates Act 1925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_Estates_Act_1925 - not a very useful page ... so this article ought to have a link to the legislation -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/contents

- note the term " personal representatives " and the fact that the chattels in the estate devolve upon them from the death of the deceased etc DaiSaw (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Executor


text:
Test drive

A test drive is the driving of a motor vehicle to assess its drivability or roadworthiness, and general operating state. A person who tests vehicles for a living, either for an automobile company, automotive media for review purposes, or a motorsports team, is called a test driver.

The first test drives of a new production vehicle are made by mainstream automobile magazines and other third parties (not customers) for initial evaluation. Once vehicles are for sale, test drives are also usually allowed by vehicle traders (dealerships) or manufacturers to enable prospective customers to determine the suitability of the vehicle to their driving style. Test drives can also be taken before vehicle repairs to assist in diagnosis or after repair works to ensure that the vehicle has been fully restored.

In a broader sense, "test drive" can be used to refer to the testing of anything, such as a computer program, an idea or process, a pair of shoes, etc.

title: Test drive


text:
Elder (Latter Day Saints)

Elder is a priesthood office in the Melchizedek priesthood of denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).

Office of the Melchizedek Priesthood
In the LDS Church, "elder" is considered the introductory—or lowest—of five offices of the Melchizedek priesthood. Every person who receives the Melchizedek priesthood is simultaneously ordained to the office of elder; this may be done to male members who are at least 18 years old. In order to be ordained, the member must be determined to be worthy by his local bishop and stake president. The consent of the priesthood holders of the stake is also required before the ordination is performed, and this is usually done at a semiannual stake conference or an annual general stake priesthood meeting. Ordination is accomplished by the laying on of hands and with the stake president's approval; it may be performed by any holder of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Responsibilities of an elder
According to the LDS Church's Doctrine and Covenants, the duty of an elder is to "teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church." Elders have the authority to administer to and bless the sick and afflicted, to "confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost", to baptize and give others the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods as directed by priesthood leaders, and to take the lead in all meetings as guided by the Holy Spirit. An elder may ordain others to the priesthood offices of deacon, teacher, priest, or elder.

In practice, elders may be responsible for many of the day-to-day operations of a ward. They are called to serve in a variety of positions throughout the ward, such as Aaronic priesthood quorum advisors, ward mission leader, clerks, and Sunday School leadership. Elders and high priests (assisted by teachers and priests) are also responsible for ministering opportunities to serve the needs of assigned respective households in the ward.

Organizational structure
Elders are organized into quorums that may contain no more than 96 members. A quorum president, along with two counselors, is called and set apart under the direction of the stake presidency, and generally serves for a number of years. A secretary is also called to assist the president and his counselors.

All adult men in the ward who are not presently serving in the bishopric, the stake high council, or the stake presidency—or as a stake patriarch—are members of the elders quorum.

The title of "Elder"
The title "Elder" is not normally used as a personal title (e.g., Elder Evans, Elder Johnson), except by the LDS Church's general authorities, area seventies, and full-time male missionaries. Often, full-time male missionaries serving within a ward are referred to by the members as "the Elders" while female missionaries are referred to as "the sisters." After a mission has been served, the returning male missionary's title, "Elder", is replaced by the common usage of "Brother".

title: Elder (Latter Day Saints)


text:
Gainsborough line

The Gainsborough line is the current marketing name of the Sudbury branch line, a railway branch line off the Great Eastern Main Line in the east of England, that links Marks Tey in Essex with Sudbury in Suffolk. It is 11 mi in length and single-track throughout. The line's Engineer's Line Reference is SUD.

Prior to the Beeching cuts initiated in the 1960s, the line, then known as the Stour Valley Railway, continued beyond Sudbury to Shelford in Cambridgeshire. Today the line is part of the Network Rail Strategic Route 7, SRS 07.10, and is classified as a rural line.

As of December 2016 the stations and all trains serving them are operated by Greater Anglia. The typical service frequency is one train per hour in each direction, with a timetabled journey time between one terminus and the other of 19 minutes.

History
The Stour Valley Railway opened on 9 August 1865, linking Shelford near Cambridge with Marks Tey in Essex, with 13 intermediate stations along the line.

The section between Shelford and Sudbury was closed on 6 March 1967 following the Beeching cuts, leaving Bures and Chappel & Wakes Colne as the only stops between the termini.

In 2005 the line received around £3 million of investment, which saw around 5 mi of old jointed track replaced with new continuous welded rail. Further investment was made in 2006 to replace around 6 mi of track, leaving just the Chappel viaduct and Lamarsh to Sudbury sections in need of modernisation. This work was completed in 2007.

In 2006 the line was designated as a community railway by the transport minister and is part of the Essex and South Suffolk Community Rail Partnership.

The current name of the line commemorates the painter Thomas Gainsborough, who was born in Sudbury; the previous name was the Lovejoy line, after the television series Lovejoy, which was filmed in the Sudbury area.

All passenger services on the line are currently operated by Greater Anglia, which runs an hourly service with frequency increasing slightly during peak hours. The last departure from Sudbury at the end of each day is extended to Colchester. There are plans to expand more services from Sudbury through to Colchester and Colchester Town using new bi-mode trains.

Notable sight
The line runs across the Chappel viaduct, which has 30 arches each with a 35 ft span, with a maximum height of 75 ft, and was the longest viaduct on the Great Eastern Railway.

The East Anglian Railway Museum is located alongside the station at Chappel & Wakes Colne.

Infrastructure
The line is single track throughout, has a loading gauge of W6, and a maximum speed of 50 mph. Unlike other branches in the area, such as the Braintree branch line and Mayflower line to Harwich Town, the Gainsborough line is not electrified. New bi-mode trains started operating on the line in January 2020.

Stations
The following table summarises the line's four stations, their distance measured from London Liverpool Street, and estimated number of passenger entries/exits in 2018–19:

Accidents and incidents

 * On 12 July 1887 one person was killed at Bures when part of a runaway train collided with a crossing gate.
 * On 27 January 2006 at least four passengers were slightly injured when a train ran into the buffer stop at Sudbury. The 6:05 pm service from Marks Tey was travelling at a speed at the time of the collision of approximately six miles per hour. An investigation determined that the driver failed to apply the brakes in a "timely and appropriate manner".
 * On 17 August 2010 the Little Cornard derailment occurred when the 5:31 pm service from Sudbury collided with a lorry that had entered a level crossing without permission. The train driver and four passengers were seriously injured in the accident.

title: Gainsborough line


text:
Great Bear

The term Great Bear can refer to:

 * Ursa Major, the constellation, whose name is the Latin for "Great Bear"
 * Great Bear Lake, the largest lake in the Northwest Territories of Canada and the fourth largest in North America
 * Great Bear River, a river fed by Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories of Canada
 * Great Bear Rainforest, British Columbia
 * Great Bear Recreation Park, a ski hill in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
 * Great Bear Wilderness area in Montana
 * Great Bear (band), a contra dance band
 * Great Bear (Radium line) a tugboat built and operated by the Radium line
 * Great Bear (roller coaster), an inverted steel roller coaster at Hersheypark in Hershey, Pennsylvania
 * The Great Bear (film), a 2011 Danish film
 * The Great Bear (lithograph), artwork by Simon Patterson based on the London Tube map
 * The Great Bear (play), a 1951 play, never produced, by John Osborne
 * GWR 111 The Great Bear, a British steam locomotive

title: Great Bear


text:
Talk:Vano Merabishvili

Untitled
Quite a lot about him on the German Wikipedia if anyone is able and willing to translate. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vano Merabishvili


text:
Talk:Flag of South Carolina

The flag was officially adopted by the state in 1861. - does this mean that before 1861 they had no official flag, or that they had a different flag, and that Revolutionary-era one replaced it? Nik42 01:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Before the War, the flag just had the cresent moon. They added the palmetto after the secession.--Bedford 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the South Carolina link at the bottom, the flag was actually designed by William Moultrie. It also says a proposal was once presented (and voted down) to ask the color to purple to honor confederate dead. Worth adding to this article? Mingusboodle (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

==does stand for a real reason Unless the editor who keeps adding that tidbit of information can provide some good sources, I'm going to keep removing that line. The flag is used on clothing to represent South Carolina,use the Confederacy. I've never heard of anyone using it in that way, though it could be because I actually live in SC. People here don't hide any qualms about waving the Confederate flag, and I cannot see how anyone could use the SC flag as a stand-in, unless they are utterly ignorant of the uses for the two flags, or they are firmly shut in the racism closet.167.7.17.3 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The state flag page suggests that the crescent shape on the flag represents birth order, but it is my understanding, and I beleive that of the National Park Service that the crescent is actually a gorgetItalic text. Traditionally it was armor plating worn around the neck to protect from sword attacks, but later an ornamental piece made of leather or brass. I believe that William Moultrie wore one as well at the time of the revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.162.229 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Apocryphal Support for "a stand-in for the Confederate Battle Flag"
I believe that this started as a sign of support of non-South Carolinians and/or Non- USC / Clemson / Citadel alumni to show support of those that wished to keep the Confederate Battle Flag flying on the SC capital building. At least I have heard it described as such from at least 6 people I have seen with a Crescent and Palmetto sticker on their cars down here in Florida. It is apocryphal only, but maybe the statement should be left in and noted as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.174.221.168 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * sounds like it is more of an "inside joke" type of thing then. It doesn't sound notable in the least.  I've heard of plenty of people who buy USC clothing just because it says "COCKS" on it but that makes a lot more sense then the scenario you are suggesting.  But if you can find an article from a newspaper or magazine that supports your claim, I will quit removing it.

In his report of 21 February 1861, Fort Sumter, Captain John G. Foster writes ''This morning a flag was raised up on a flagstaff situated nearly in the middle of the north front of the portion of the entrenchments denominated the "field work" in my letter of the 27th January. The body of the flag is red, with a blue union in the upper staff corner, having upon it the palmetto and crescent in white.''. Any idea which flag that might be? None of those depicted in this article seems to really match the description. Fornadan (t) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Moultrie Flag
Has two versions, no one really knows which one was at the actual battle. The most common one I see has the word liberty at the bottom of the blue field, not in the crescent itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.196.197 (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible better source in print
This page could benefit from a potential better source in print rather than over reliance on web pages and links. I noticed the following reference cited in a Edgars history of the state: Wylma Ann Wates, A Flag Worthy of Your State and People: The History of the South Carolina State Flag, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1996. 26 pages. I have not read or seen it. Red Harvest (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal definition?
Where is the state flag legally defined? I searched the South Carolina code of laws and couldn't find anything. Does that mean this is the flag by de facto and not de jure? Illegitimate Barrister 13:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Use and vexillological symbol are incorrect
Under use it says that this flag is a “state flag”. Although it is a state flag, that is not what “state flag” means. This is a civil and state flag because both citizens and the government can fly it. The vexillological symbol should also change to the appropriate symbol. Thanks, Benmsch (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sc flag
Who made it 2600:6C5E:5C7F:1EA:71F7:FA18:93F9:5C6A (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flag of South Carolina


text:
Talk:Outposts of tyranny

'Outposts of Tyranny'
The parts you removed are not biased. To claim the Bush 'axis of evil' phrase was highly criticised is fact. There is nothing in the article claiming whether this criticism was justified, only that it occurred. Grunners 02:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This comment belongs here, not on my talk page. And the phrase "often highly" is not NPV, so it was removed.Keetoowah 01:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "often highly criticised" makes the point that it is reguarly highly criticised. NPV as far as I can see, "rightly highly criticised", or "often incorrectly criticised" are biased, but that is not what is stated. The phrase "America is often desvcribed as acting unilaterally" for example is fact, but is neutral as no mention is made as to whether Wikipedia sides with either camp. Grunners 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am only here because of the notice at WP:RFC. In my opinion, the "often highly criticized" is highly POV (as well as being awkwardly worded). You don't need to pound the idea into the reader that the phrase was criticized, and unless the reader has been living in a remote cave (and perhaps even then), they already know that the phrase received plenty of criticism from various countries, groups, and individuals. If you have to, just link the mention of the criticism to Axis_of_evil.

Also, "the new term has quickly come under fire" is another addition of POV. If you want to make the point that it has been criticized, it would be much better to include an example of the criticism such as a quote from, or an external link to, a critique of the phrase from Human Rights Watch or another NGO. BlankVerse 07:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Georgia
Georgia is clearly one of the freer countries in the world (though certainly far from perfect), and it has improved quite considerably since the Rose Revolution. I've now replaced it with Egypt, which has a considerably worse human rights record. Why do you insist on keeping Georgia in as an exemplar of a US ally with a poor human rights record, when there are other much clearer examples?--Pharos

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/georgi9903.htm) has this to say in a document dated 15/1/2005: "torture and ill-treatment in pre-trial detention remain widespread. Chechen refugees also remain vulnerable to state discrimination and abuse by Georgian security forces." and "In February, the new government rushed several constitutional changes through Parliament. One change empowered the president to appoint and dismiss judges. This change—which contravenes international human rights norms—increases the president’s influence over a judiciary which already lacked independence." and "The government is engaged in a highly publicized fight against corruption, with frequent arrests of high profile figures. Georgian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and others are concerned that the authorities are selectively targeting individuals for political reasons, and that the law is not being applied equally to all. Allegations of due process violations are common, and some of those detained for corruption allege torture and ill-treatment." That seems pretty clear to me. --Xaliqen 20:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are clearly some problems with human rights in Georgia, but it is a democracy and compared with other countries it has a relatively good record.--Pharos 20:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how Georgia has a much better human rights record than Egypt. I won't start a revert war over this because I don't see the point, but I would have to say that my overall impression is that Georgia does not have a good human rights record. --Xaliqen 21:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) However, I will say that Georgia has a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia. --Xaliqen 21:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Georgia (unlike Egypt) is rather indisputably a democracy with more freedoms than nearly all other countries in the CIS. I think if you followed Georgia more closely, you would see it is clearly not among the worse violators of human rights in the world. I concur about Saudi Arabia, which makes no pretense of the absolute nature of its government.--Pharos 21:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Georgia may not be perfect, but it is far from the worst globally, just look at its neighbour to the north as an example. Grunners 01:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belarus
it's too unusual not to see Belarus in this list... --Monkbel 08:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colombia
Now I'd be the first to admit that the human rights situation in Colombia is horrible, and to criticize U.S. policy towards the country and towards the drug war, yet that does not equate to even suggesting the existence of something that merits "outpost of tyranny" status. That's an entirely different animal. Colombia, even at its worst, is in an entirely different category than Egypt, China and Saudi Arabia. Especially because even if its a country in the middle of a horrible war (and that's already a big difference, to begin with!), many respected international organizations who, obviously, have completely warranted criticisms (which are very easy to Google up, anyone can do that, but that's not the point) openly avoid making such suggestions, both implicitly and explicitly, and do not place Colombia together with the previously mentioned entities as part of such potential "outposts of tyranny" (and by respected international organizations I mean the UN, OAS, IACHR, RSF, HRW, TI, ISHR, FH, etc. and others, for which I can provide links to). Hence I consider that equating Colombia with China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in the context of this article is definitely debatable, especially when made in such an offhand manner, "as if" the only reason Colombia wouldn't be included in the list is because of "U.S. political concerns". The situation in Colombia is far more complex than that and the previously mentioned organizations recognize that, even when they make their criticisms. Juancarlos2004 02:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think the list of countries is a matter of equating them with one another, or of equating them with the so-called "outposts of tyranny." It is merely to call attention to places where the U.S. has turned a blind eye in certain circumstances.  I think it is clear that Colombia belongs in the list of countries to which the U.S. has 'turned a blind eye.'  Specifically, I would reference the HRW overview for Colombia for 2004.  I don't think there is anything implying that these countries would be better off if the United States did get involved, but it is merely pointing out that there are many countries with certain problems and the U.S. seems to be focusing on only a select few.  As I see it, this is the primary nature of the criticism leveled at the U.S. in this area. Here is a more recent report by HRW on Colombia.  --Xaliqen 19:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, thanks for the reply, but my objection still stands, especially due to the exact wording used in the article itself, which still does tend to imply what I've mentioned. HRW's reports (which I have already taken into account, if not I wouldn't mention them in the above list, that would be irrational) do present ample criticism of the situation in Colombia and of the government there. But it is easily forgotten that this is also directed at all the armed groups involved in what is clearly an internal war, not a situation of complete peace where full responsibility lies with official authorities. For what it's worth, of all the groups involved, it can be argued that the government itself, for a structure that has many times as much individuals under its control than all the other parties combined, is the entity less directly and proportionally responsible for the gravest abuses, especially if we are speaking about abuses that would be considered normal procedures in China, Egypt and Saudia Arabia. I must again stress these points, even if it sounds repetitive. The term "outposts of tyranny" doesn't only refer to human rights, but also to political rights which, despite the violence and abuses that do clearly happen in Colombia, are more respected there than in the above mentioned countries, even if it were just a modest difference. Opposition figures have won important elections and the government's supported candidates have lost, the government can't simply ignore Court orders either but must comply, etc. Freedom House classifies Colombia as a "partially free" country, which while it may be nothing to be proud of, is clearly a few places above "not free", where China, Egypt and Saudia Arabia are classified.
 * And as much as it may pain me to say this (as I spend time criticizing the U.S.'s current perspective towards Colombia here and in real life), even if the U.S. is not implementing the correct policies at all, there are several signs that show that the U.S. cannot completely turn a blind eye to the human rights situation in Colombia (not in the same manner that the article implies is the case for the other countries in the list, hence the comparison is imperfect), among them the fact that the U.S. does require Colombia to fulfill some human rights requirements every year. The fact that this is in place, even if the criteria employed by the U.S. to measure this may be questionable, marks yet another difference. Juancarlos2004 23:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkey
Yet another country's removed from the list! - I've removed Turkey from the list of countries, the human rights situation in Turkey isn't comparable to any in the outposts of tyranny nor with the likes of Saudi Arabia. How was this list drawn up? Who are these 'political commentators'? What criteria was used? -- Joolz 00:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that depends on where you are in Turkey. The government's operations to put down the KPP uprising were not pretty, and have been widely criticized. The US has an alliance with Turkey (NATO) and does not publicly criticize it to the extent that it criticizes NK or Zimbabwe. It's appropriate for the list. Gazpacho 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The fundamental question is who are these political commentators and where is the source? Without that we're using weasel terms. -- Joolz 18:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's OK to speak in general terms in this context since each country might not come from the same commentators, but just for reference: Noam Chomsky in American Interventionism. Gazpacho 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The List

 * I'm not sure if all of these countries belong on this list, but it seems inappropriate to just remove it altogether; you can't just say something is "weasel" b/c you dislike it;  Xaligen

Who says I dislike it? It's weasel because it has no source, just "political commentators", not because of how I feel about it. Does HRW (or anyone notable) specifically criticize the US government for "outposts of tyranny"? If so please source it. If not the list should go, because we Avoid weasel terms at Wikipedia. And if you do find a source, is it neutralized by:
 * Rice's speech did not mention these countries, although the State Department criticizes all of them in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

It sounds to me as if the US government criticizes these countries at least once a year. --M4-10 05:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the rest of the year they're busy conducting military and/or trade negotations with those countries. Human Rights Watch is the source I go to for up to date info on the countries in question.  It's a fact the United States has close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list.  If you would care to investigate further and figure out which countries have the closest military/economic ties with the U.S. and are currently behaving with the most questionable conduct, then please do so.  I'm placing the list back where it was.  For an article addressing specific issues of concern, please look here.  --Xaliqen 09:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This list has no source. It has nothing to do with the article and you cite no sources of any "political commentators" who used this list. You are the only political commentator here. In any case political commentators comment on news, they don't make it. This article is about Condeleeza Rice, her phrase "outposts of tyranny", any resulting U.S. policy, and the individual countries she named. Anything else is off-topic. North Korean government reaction: on topic. Markos Zuniga reaction: off topic. If you have any links that specificially criticize (or support) Rice or her phrase feel free to put them in an "external links" section. --M4-10 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly notable that while the U.S is opposing the "Outposts of Tyranny" here, it has allied with other governments that have very major human rights problems. Criticism of policies is also notable, and should not just be relegated to an external link. I'm not saying we have to have a comprehensive listing of of every questionable government the U.S. is allied with, but there should be at least a few examples to demonstrate the point.--Pharos 17:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Then name a source. --M4-10 19:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I listed an article from Human Rights Watch that addresses the topic. The list is relevant and important.  --Xaliqen 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, though your possible accreditation for the list to me is flattering, I'm afraid I cannot take credit as it has been a part of the article since its inception. --Xaliqen 04:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV tag
I removed the POV tag. Although I wasn't the one to put it up, I think Pharos' last edit is good enough to remove it. I still think it's silly: we wouldn't put "But communism impoverished millions of workers" in the article about Workers of the World, Unite!. Not very encyclopedic. Oh well. If anyone feels the need to re-add the POV tag, please explain your reasons here. --M4-10 21:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV and original research
Pharos asks, "it's "hostile original research" that Uzbekistan is widely seen as having a poor human rights record?"

No, though this is not what is in contention, as what the article states is that, "Although the U.S. government has castigated those states designated as "Outposts of tyranny" for their human rights records, it has maintained friendly relations and even alliances with some other governments with poor human rights records." It does not mention the perception of others and neither is either sort of assertion sourced. What the intention plainly is here is to utilize presumed facts about some countries with much better (in many instances, at least) relations with the US as a polemical device against the usage of the term, whereas even of the compiled list (the terms for which are argued over here as no one apparently realizes the inappropriateness of deciding such a list for this site) are there criticisms from the same government (US), agency (State Dept.), and official (Rice), which was frankly admitted in a later edit. So instead what we essentially have is that the State Dept. and Bush administration has come up with gradations of state human rights violators, of which apparently "outpost of tyranny" is the most severe, and some Wikipedia editors object to this practice and wish to ghost write their own criticisms without even the pretense of correlating actual material concerning the subject.

Lastly, it is rather negligent to revert legitimate changes not concerning disputed material alongside it, though such a KOS mentality is revealing. --TJive July 3, 2005 22:31 (UTC)

 * Are you really accusing me of having the mentality of a member of the counter-intelligence service of the Yugoslav People's Army?! Please, no personal attacks.  I am sorry if I didn't notice the small changes you'd made at the top and saw only the major deletion at the bottom, but such "KOS mentality" stuff is really beyond the pale.
 * :) Well, I guess you can see I'm not one who goes in for much online gaming; I just checked where KOS went on Wikipedia. Hey, I've heard odder things around here before.  Sorry for my slightly righteous indignation, but who wouldn't be annoyed by such a crazy-sounding accusation?  What a great reference work we have here.  Gotta be careful about those TLAs, though...

 * OK, now, do you dispute that Uzbekistan, Egypt etc. are widely perceived as having poor human rights records? If not, then is it wholly irrelevant that some states that are widely perceived as having poor human rights records are considered "Outposts of Tyranny" and others are not?  Your idea that it is simply a matter of "gradations of state human rights violators" is frankly not supported by the Bush administration; noone in the administration has ever said that Uzbekistan has a better human rights record than, say, Belarus.

 * Noone is disputing that there is some criticism of these states by the U.S.; the issue is of degree and proportionality compared to other states, and more significantly the continuance of friendly relations.--Pharos 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

 * Cute, though I would have thought "KOS" is a rather familiar acronym on this website.

 * I do not dispute that the countries listed are "widely perceived as having poor human rights records". That, as I said, is not what the article stated.  Rather it asserts that states X, Y, Z have poor human rights records, a list whose qualifications it is not within the capacity of Wikipedia to develop and enumerate; that is what constitutes original research.  Imagine a Wiki article, "Lists of countries with poor human rights records", which would not only be subject to POV disputes but it does not correlate known facts, merely reflecting the analysis of whatever portion of contributors.  That is essentially what has been done here--some editors have decided amongst themselves which countries have "poor human rights records" to whatever degree in comparison with Rice's listed states.

 * I find your comment that my "idea that it is simply a matter of "gradations of state human rights violators" is frankly not supported by the Bush administration" to be slightly bizarre. The existence of the term implies particularity of the actual countries, from which the exclusion of a perhaps equally deserving country would merit criticism, rather than simply having a shopping list of countries which are all to be presumed (by contributors here) to be of equal merit.

 * What further hammers home the intention here is the language previously inserted in the article, that the US "rarely, if ever, criticizes" the listed governments--which is flatly untrue, as the State Dept. publishes a report every year which gives detailed criticisms of human rights violations in every relevant country. What, then, is the opprobrium of "outpost of tyranny" but an informal grouping of what are considered by Rice to be special violators?

 * Frankly, there has been an open forum for a good while here to provide notable or substantive criticism on the concept itself and yet all we have are the opinions of editors, even a (possibly sardonic) insertion of one user as the source for such a criticism. That is inappropriate and bordering on juvenile.  --TJive July 3, 2005 23:53 (UTC)

 * As to the term "KOS", in case you were serious, look here: Internet slang

 * KOS — "Kill on Sight"; used to designate enemies in online games whom -- based on their prior actions -- one should kill

 * It is used more generally to refer to a policy of banning--"killing"--particular users or content (or users' content) in a particular online forum, in this case all changes to the article were said by me to have been "killed on sight". That is not a personal attack.  --TJive July 3, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

 * I'd absolutely no idea what KOS meant, I'm not sure that I've seen it being used on Wikipedia too much (or at least, not the parts of wikipedia I frequent). Never the less, as for the edits you've made, I agree with them absolutely. -- Joolz 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

 * Okay, perhaps I should have clarified that from the start then. It was not my intention to cause offense.  --TJive July 4, 2005 00:04 (UTC)

 * I should probably make an addendum here. The term "outpost of tyranny" was used by Rice in her written testimony and thus can be construed as a single informal reference as I said previously, but may not necessarily reflect a broader view of gradations developed by the State Dept. or Bush administration as a whole (which I previously asserted).  Indeed, it seems clear that in the same words of Rice; even some countries listed here might qualify on her own terms but have simply not all been enumerated.  In the statement itself, note the following passage in the context of the term:

 * ''To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny – and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the “town square test”: if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a “fear society” has finally won their freedom.

 * ''In the Middle East, President Bush has broken with six decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the hope of purchasing stability at the price of liberty. The stakes could not be higher. As long as the broader Middle East remains a region of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce extremists and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends.

 * So, for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al are not enumerated specifically as "outposts of tyranny" but rather the entire Middle East is painted with the swath of a "region of tyranny". Certainly the opprobrium is the same even where not specifically targeted.  What the question becomes then is whether this is a gradation and, if so, how this was decided.  Everything leads me to believe it was as I said before, an informal grouping which can only defer to more substantive criticism, such as in the yearly Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, where all the countries mentioned in this article at any point are fair game.  In that case it is simply incorrect to say that certain countries the US is friendlier to receive less harsh condemnation unless one believes that the yearly reports are themselves inaccurate.  I will attempt to edit the article to reflect all of this.  --TJive July 4, 2005 00:34 (UTC)

 * I'm glad (and slightly amused) to see we've cleared up the KOS business (see my comment above). To the article, I agree with you that saying that countries have poor human right records is not NPOV; however as there is not dispute that these countries are "widely perceived as having" poor human rights records I would definitely agree to changing that wording; if specific references are needed, many can be easily found (media, rights groups, even, as you say, the U.S. State Dept.).

 * The wording, "rarely, if ever criticizes" is something I personally changed, to "rarely criticizes in such strong terms", which is more accurate. The "Outpost of Tyrrany" labelling, in addition to being quite stronger and direct, has also been much higher profile than the State Dept. reports; this is not an issue of "informality", one can't ignore that just six countries were named in this very major policy speech.  But, as I said, more than on the subject of verbal criticism, it is a significant issue that the U.S. is friendly with a number of states that are widely percieved of as no better in human rights than the six named "Outposts of Tyranny".--Pharos 4 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Again, I think there is no allowance here as to interpretation. Just as she remarked on "outposts of tyranny" she also labeled the Middle East as a "region of tyranny"--which itself not only included unmentioned traditional U.S. foes such as Syria and Libya (and arguably Sudan) but U.S. allies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. I edited the article to reflect this but another editor found it to be too subjective a judgement. I do, however, disagree that this can be said to be the only and worst form of public criticism as a short time ago Rice paid a very high-profile visit to the same "region of tyranny" to explicitly chastise human rights practices in those very allied countries. What I am basically saying here is that as "outposts of tyranny" seems to hold no official designation in the parlance of government that it should be taken as a convenient, informal neologism (which the article is designated under) and not as a blanket prescriptive policy for dealing with states based upon a detailed examination of the record (and thus some are said by persons unseen to have eluded it), which is what the attempted interpretation here is. --TJive July 4, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

 * Instead of doing what we did before, we could link to the list of countries critisised by the U.S. State Department, there must be one around somewhere. -- Joolz 4 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

 * Done. --TJive July 4, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

In no way was the list of countries with poor human rights records, which also maintain good relations with the United States, "hostile original research." I find the censorship of this list to be surprising, especially since I'd already listed a good source in hrw.org and the specific link listed in the conversation above. I find the exclusion of the list to be a violation of NPOV because it is rather glaringly representing one viewpoint on the issue to merely list Rice's statements with various verifications without even mentioning the vast controversy sparked by the term. The article as it stands at the moment I find to be rather outrageously biased and almost propagandistic in nature. --Xaliqen 21:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It is original research because the parameters of inclusion for "countries with poor human rights records" are up to you to define. I am not aware that there has been any given examples of criticism concerning the term itself, as opposed to general fulminations on US policy by our own humble editors.  Surely if there was a "vast controversy sparked by the term" then there are one or two notable criticisms you are aware of.  --TJive 22:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Feel free to start an article about "Outposts of Tyranny (Criticism)" and link to it, or simply put an external link section with some links to criticism from credible sources. Commentary doesn't belong in the article body.  I don't see how an article can be propagandistic when it states what was said and what was meant by it.  It might be considered biased if:
 * to describe certain countries where, in her opinion, the government is oppressive and shows contempt for democracy and human rights.
 * ... didn't say "in her opinion", though even then a strong argument could be made that the named "outposts" are objectively oppressive and contemptous of democracy and human rights. In its current form it is not biased and certainly not "outrageously" biased.  This article is not about the controversy (which barely exists anyway, especially compared to "Axis of Evil").  --M4-10 22:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While I fully realize and acknowledge that there is a greater controversy surrounding "Axis of Evil," I believe there is a rather substantial controversy additionally surrounding "Outposts of Tyranny" that deserves to be recognized in some form within the article itself, both with regards to its nature and as to its various sources. Regarding the latter, I have come up with several in addition to the HRW articles I listed above:        I realize that some of these articles introduce their own biases, and this can naturally be expected and should most certainly also be acknowledged.  However, I strongly believe that not listing anything regarding the criticisms of the term is to do a disservice to the article as a whole. --Xaliqen 22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you fully understand the point here. While you have provided evidence of human rights abuses of regimes that have close relationships to the U.S., you fail to understand how inserting this into the article is inappropriate.  This is because you were essentially developing ad hoc criteria for what constitutes "countries with poor human rights records" and inserting into the article as a generic criticism of US policy with no reference to it elsewhere.  This isn't a forum for your criticisms or generic charges against the U.S. government, it is specifically concerning the term itself and notable comments on it.
 * Whether these sources you now list are notable is open to question; that some are flatly irrelevant and erroneous in the matter you present them is not. "SourceWatch" is a project similar to this one with a political slant that itself has compiled usages of the term.  Two articles, from Xinhua and Dong-A Ilbo, refer to the same incident of a repeat of the term and subsequent criticism from Korean officials.  In that, it seems as if the (already given) inclusion of criticism concerning the mention of NK has become a melodrama; when does this process of criticism and counter-criticism end?  The "Arab View" editorial only mentions "outposts of tyranny" in passing to a general lambasting of US foreign policy which concerns itself mostly with US history other than current support for Israel--completely irrelevant here.
 * The Iafrica article concerning the president of South Africa is certainly noble, only in the very context the article cites: that Mbeki is explicitly keeping mum on Mugabe's policies.  How stirring.
 * Moreover, it is hard to take the insertion of the NPOV tag without any prior deference to talk concerning the latest edits as but made in bad faith, and with no attempt to edit for your own part with any such thing as you now present in mind. --TJive 00:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not endeavor to add to the present article because I saw the determination, most notably that of yourself, to do away with any criticism of the term by coming up with arguments that appear to possibly be generated in "bad faith" in order to keep the article in its present one-sided state. Yes, it is true that two of the articles refer to the same incident.  So what?  I submitted both because I felt that with that particular issue it was better to corroborate with more than one source.  Yes it is true that some of the articles introduce their own particular biases, just as the Secretary introduced her own particular biases in originally stating the term.  I already mentioned that such biases should naturally be addressed.  In general, I find your stance to be rather unworkable in the sense that your manner is apparently combative.  I am attempting to present evidence to work towards a solution to the issue at hand and, in general, I found you at the present time to present an uncompromising and, in my view, somewhat insulting manner.  Indeed, it appears to me that you are not operating in good faith and due to this I hesitate to work with you on this issue as I was previously attempting.  --Xaliqen 00:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not endeavor to add to the present article because I saw the determination, most notably that of yourself, to do away with any criticism of the term by coming up with arguments that appear to possibly be generated in "bad faith" in order to keep the article in its present one-sided state.
 * The problem here is that the purpose of this article is not utilize the ostensible subject as a launching board for the general criticisms of editors at Wikipedia [that none otherwise exist here neither implies that there are not nor that there should be so] - it is for the purpose of creating a hopefully acceptable encyclopedic article under the guidelines laid out in the myriad rules of the site. The manner in which you attempted to edit this article quite clearly goes against the no original research policy and so far you have managed to avoid comment on that, rather focusing in on attributing the deletion to a POV of my own, which was itself an implicit attribution of bad faith before I could have ever said to be "combative", much less "insulting", towards you.
 * Yes, it is true that two of the articles refer to the same incident. So what?
 * So, it seems to me (as should have been a previous, unspoken inference already), that rather than address the issue pertaining to the material you inserted you have instead chosen to focus on lodging as many articles with the slightest tangential relevance to the discussion--which is specific criticism of the concept of "outposts of tyranny"; why would South Korea merit two and not South Africa? I digress.
 * I apologize if you perceive me to be intent on warring with you or attempting to engage in any sort of incivility. The drawbacks of the online format connote language to be much more blunt or curt than actually intended.  Nonetheless, I view the manner and nature of the dispute you have lodged to have been as much an affront as you view my own comments.  If you would contribute to the article yourself in a manner which takes into account the previous discussion you might find I am perfectly willing to treat fairly substantive and notable material which does not agree with my opinions, much less Ms. Rice's, which isn't to suggest I will not necessarily dispute it, but that mere shots in the dark get nothing accomplished but mutual antagonism.  --TJive 01:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I would like to remind you that it was not I who originally added the section and the content currently in dispute. Therefore, you attributing some idea of personal research to myself seems somewhat strange to me.  Furthermore, I have supplied various articles with criticism of the term, they do vary in the nature of their criticism, but I felt the most recently added article from the 25th January issue of The Progressive specifically references the nature of the claims in the presently disputed material.  If you have specific concerns about aspects of the present material that are not represented in the article, then please address those specific concerns and the not the entire issue as if it were somehow irrelevant.
 * Furthermore, I would like to mention that it is specifically not my intention to include material based on some personal opinion that I hold. I apologize if that was the impression you were under.--Xaliqen 01:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not strictly relevant to what extent the disputed content was either created, modified, or reverted to by you. It is what it is in any case.  You were in fact engaging in arguments over the specific inclusion of some countries or the other, and yet you say this is not to imply the necessity of your own opinion.
 * On the contrary, it is very well known and accessible with statements such as, "it is merely pointing out that there are many countries with certain problems and the U.S. seems to be focusing on only a select few"; and "Yeah, and the rest of the year they're busy conducting military and/or trade negotations with those countries. Human Rights Watch is the source I go to for up to date info on the countries in question. It's a fact the United States has close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list"; it is quite clear what your view of the subject matter is. --TJive 06:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * "it is quite clear what your view of the subject matter is" This does not strike me as highly relevant.  My view of the subject matter may be apparent to you on this discussion page, but I have not included my view within the article itself.  And, in case you didn't know, it does happen to be a fact that 'the United States maintains close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list.'  So, I really don't consider that piece of info all that opinionated. --Xaliqen 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

TJive, I wholeheartedly support your recent addition providing further information about 'Reactions' to the term, and consider it a vast improvement over the previous material. I believe that, in addressing these issues in this specific manner, the article has been greatly improved.--Xaliqen 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --TJive 01:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Does it not seem strange to anyone else that the "reactions" section, essentially criticisms, is longer than the actual subject of the article? In my opinion, the speech given should be quoted more thoroughly or something done to keep this encycolpedic. Perhaps drop the reference to a writer's opinion from "The Progressive"? haha. There are reactions from the governments of South Africa, N. Korea... and a random writer from "The Progressive"?? The article is unbalanced... specifically because that source is noticably out of place. If Wiki subject articles were to allow inclusion of random social and political commentary from pundits and/or unknown editors from any newspaper... it's going to get messy. You'll have Pravda, Daily Kos, The Constitution, KKK Weekly (if that exists), etc.. taking up the majority of space in articles that are fairly straightforward. The relevence to the thoughts of Joe Smith from a partisan newspaper is what exactly? Cowboy357 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Map
Ok, people seem to be revert warring over which map version to use, can we discuss it here instead please? To me one version seems overly complicated and introduces other things which aren't related so much to this page, personally I'm not sure a map is really appropriate at all, it seems rather unneccessary. -- Joolz 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The map is complicated because more than a handful of nations are at odds with America. I tried out the same map in Axis of Evil, Rogue States, and Outpost of Tyranny to illustrate the fact the certain nations can be declared enemies of America for varying reasons and that one nation can be grouped in more than one designation.  Furthermore, by showing where the countries are located on a map, the uniformed will be readily able to recognize that although nations may belong to the same classifications this does not mean that these countries are bound together in some organization or alliance as most do not share similar geography, culture, religion and politics.  Additionally, the original maps (by another individual) I felt where not perfect as they were.  For example, the font was not easy to read (for myself) and the colours used did not properly contrast (using large fills of red and blue alone is very difficult for the eye to focus on).  Also, Vancouver Island was indicated as an American possession!  If the maps I have created are also found to be lacking, or wrong, perhaps readers can suggest ways to improve it.  I should think though that my original idea of one map for three articles was flawed; I will create three separate maps in the future.I ask that TJLive, who evidently has some issues with the maps inform me next time when they delete the map what they find wrong with it, instead of just simply writing revert.  In this way, what is perceived as a small ‘revert war’ can come to an end.--RPlunk 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like Thailand has been colored in instead of Burma (Myanmar). Can someone fix this?--KingZog 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow, what a goof. I'll make a new one.  --TJive 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Doin't bother, I've already fixed it.--Pharos 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well hell. How do I go about getting my image deleted?  --TJive 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Since, you, the creator, are requesting it, and it's not being used for anything, I can just do it myself without too much ceremony.--Pharos 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. --TJive 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting choice of phrase
So what does "the town square test" say about Free speech zones? Ojw 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Further revision needed
Looking at the above 2005 discussions, it seems that the passage of three years seems to have calmed things down in this article. The article still needs to focus better on the initial uses of the term as there now are no quotes in the article from Rice containing "Outposts of tyranny". Suntag (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

sparkling example of a deletable article
The sourcing of this article is very poor. It seems to be little more than an article about a phrase Condoleeza Rice used once, with WP:OR analysis added. No notability is even asserted! I'm pretty sure I'll be coming back to AfD this thing soon, when I'm not busy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Countries that cannot be visited.
dear Wikipedia team. please look up those countries that are known they do not oblidge to cultural exchange programne, or cannot be visited. And Visa were not granted. example: it was not DDR that could not be visited. Sometimes tyrrany countries are nit allowed to VISIT Other Countries. This worsens tyrrany. but if a country is NOT A TYRRANY, and it CAN NOT ENTER SOME OTHER COUNTRIES, WHATS GOING ON? 2A01:598:C801:A650:3071:73B0:CD0F:FD76 (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Outposts of tyranny


text:
Dawsonite

Dawsonite is a mineral composed of sodium aluminium carbonate hydroxide, chemical formula NaAlCO3(OH)2. It crystallizes in the orthorhombic crystal system. It is not mined for ore. It was discovered in 1874 during the construction of the Redpath Museum in a feldspathic dike on the campus of McGill University on the Island of Montreal, Canada. It is named after geologist Sir John William Dawson (1820–1899).

The type material is preserved in the collection of the Redpath Museum.

title: Dawsonite


text:
The Lord of the Rings Online

The Lord of the Rings Online is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) for Microsoft Windows and OS X set in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth, taking place during the time period of The Lord of the Rings. Originally developed by Turbine, the game launched in North America, Australia, Japan, and Europe in April 2007 as The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar. Players could create characters of four races and seven classes and adventure throughout the region of Eriador. In November 2008, the Mines of Moria expansion was released, adding the region of Moria and two new playable classes. It was followed by the Siege of Mirkwood in December 2009. In 2010 the game underwent a shift from its original subscription-based payment model to being free-to-play.

The game saw continued development, alternating between paid expansions and free updates, which added new content in the regions of Isengard, Rohan and Gondor. In late 2016 the publishing of the game was transferred from Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment to Daybreak Game Company, with development being taken over by Standing Stone Games, made up of former Turbine staff. The game development continued and in 2017 the Mordor expansion was released, bringing the main storyline to a close. The game then shifted to portraying the aftermath of the downfall of Sauron as well as telling the "Tales of Yore" which chronologically precede the main story, with the Minas Morgul expansion released in 2019 and the Fate of Gundabad expansion released in 2021.

Gameplay
Similar to other MMORPGs, players control a character avatar within the game world, interacts with objects, NPCs and other players. Characters gain levels by earning experience points, acquiring both new skills and trait points, which can be assigned in various configurations to customize personal playstyle. Players traverse the game world either on foot, using personal mounts or via instantaneous travel options. Players improve their characters by upgrading their equipment and can customize their look with the Cosmetic System, which can display armour and weapons other than those used for combat effectiveness. Characters also earn Reputation with various factions in the world, completing progressive tiers which unlock various rewards, from cosmetic pets and outfits to superior quality weapons and armour.

The crafting system allows each character to master up to three professions, which are separated into gathering of raw materials and actual crafting of usable items. Per the characterization of Hobbits in Tolkien's writings, significant emphasis is placed on cooking and agricultural farming. Characters have a Wallet for various currencies, with gold, silver and copper coins earned from most game activities and used for various common purchases. Many world regions, group instances and seasonal festivals feature their own unique currencies, which can neither be earned nor spend outside them. The in-game store uses LOTRO points, which can be both purchased with real money and earned in-game. Players can own personal houses, which can be decorated and provide access to facilities and additional storage space. Four themed neighbourhoods that are free for all are located in the original starter zones for Men, Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits. More neighbourhoods with larger houses and more decorating options are located in Gondor Rohan and Erebor and purchased with microtransaction.

Subsequent updates and expansions introduced other systems to the game. Mines of Moria added Legendary items, intended to stay with the player throughout the game as opposed to being constantly replaced with better options. Each characters has one class-specific legendary weapon and one supplementary item, which increase in power alongside the character's level and can be enhanced with additional modifiers that affect the character's stats or skill behaviour. Riders of Rohan introduced mounted combat, with new rohirric war-steeds that allow players to execute attacks and other skills while on horseback. War-steeds have stats like those of player characters and can be customized by selecting different types of war-steeds, investing in different trait lines and switching between different mounted stances. Players can customize the look of their war-steeds by mix-and-matching various appearance traits. Gondor introduced essence gear with empty slots that can be enhanced with desired stats, allowing players to further customize armour to their playstyle.

Classes and races
Lord of the Rings Online launched with four playable races: Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits and Men. In 2014 the new race of Beornings was added, although only for the new class of the same name. In 2017 the Mordor expansion added the new High Elf race. In 2019 a race of "Stout-Axe Dwarves" was added with the Minas Morgul expansion, representing a dwarven clan from the far east of Middle-Earth with an appearance distinct from that of Longbeard dwarves and allowing players to choose the gender of those dwarven characters, unlike the original Dwarven race, which only allows male characters.

The original seven character classes in the game are Burglar, Captain, Champion, Guardian, Hunter, Lore-master and Minstrel. Mines of Moria added two more classes: Rune-Keeper and Warden. A Beorning class was added in a regular update in November 2014, followed by the Brawler class in 2021, which was included in the Fate of Gundabad expansion. Most recently the Mariner class has become available to those that pre-purchase The Corsairs of Umbar expansion. All classes can further specialize in one of three trait lines that further determine their skills and combat role. In addition to Class traits, Racial and Virtue traits can also be allocated to further modify class performance.

Group Instances
Players can form groups of up to six characters in "fellowships", which can be further combined into "raids" of up to four fellowships. Fellowships are required to complete various group instances, which come in several distinct variations. A typical "instance" alternates between groups of strong enemies and boss encounters with special mechanics that provide a chest of rewards upon defeat. "Raids" are similar to instances but feature "raid locks", allowing progress of a difficult raid to be tracked across multiple game sessions. "Skirmishes" introduced with the Siege of Mirkwood expansion feature both enemy groups of random composition and randomized "Skirmish Lieutenant" encounters across the instance. "Epic Battles" introduced with the Helm's Deep expansion represent large-scale battles, in which friendly NPCs engage the enemy alongside the player characters, whose focus lies on supporting their allies and completing specific objectives as opposed to simply defeating all enemies. Many group instances can be played on different group sizes, levels and tiers of difficulty for progressively higher rewards.

Game World
The game is set J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth based on The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, as its license does not cover rights to any other works in Tolkien's legendarium, such as The Silmarillion. The game features a day–night cycle and various atmospheric and weather effects, which differ from day to day. The world is divided into four larger sections of Eriador, Rhovanion, Gondor and Mordor. The game began to allow exploration and adventuring into the arid regions south of Gondor — Umbar and Harad — in order to ensure the prolonged safety of the newly-crowned King Elessar (Aragorn) and his wife Arwen, in November 2023. The gameworld, beyond these five broad segments, is then divided further into distinct "Regions", which are then further sub-divided into "Areas". Each region contains NPCs and quests intended for a certain character level range, with the main Epic storyline serving as a guide between the areas of a region and regions of the world in the intended order. Each Region is "fixed" at a specific time period during the War of the Ring despite the passage of time in the main story; because of this, characters such as Gandalf or Aragorn can appear at multiple places simultaneously if those places are set during different portions of the story. Some of these locations are permanently accessible in more than one state: players can freely move from Isengard flooded by the Ents to Isengard at the height of Saruman's power, and from Minas Tirith's rebuilding after the battle of the Pelennor Fields to Minas Tirith before the battle, with the enemy still beyond the wall.

Player vs Monster Player
Classic PvP combat found in many other games does not exist in The Lord of the Rings Online. Instead, Player vs Monster Player (also known as PvMP or Monster Play) allows players to create "Monster player" characters and engage Free People in combat in special secluded areas.

Monster player classes are Orc Reaver, Orc Defiler, Spider Weaver, Uruk Blackarrow, Uruk Warleader and Warg Stalker. Monster player characters are fixed in level and advance by gaining Infamy Ranks for killing Free People characters instead. Monster players can not equip items, but can use consumable buffs and can be customized with various appearance traits. They can form a groups or "Warbands" but are unable to leave the confines of the PvMP area. Originally, the only PvMP area was the Ettenmoors, where Free Players could travel and battle Monster players for control over the five keeps and minor outposts. In July 2015, a second PvMP area was added in the ruins of Osgiliath.

Plot
The main or "Epic" storyline is told across "Volumes", which are released in "Books" consisting of a series of quests called "Chapters".

Volume I: Shadows of Angmar
The first Epic Volume starts shortly after Frodo and his friends had left the Shire. The players arrive to Bree, where they become acquainted with Aragorn and Gandalf and get involved in the larger affairs of Middle-Earth. After initially following in the footsteps of Aragorn and the Hobbits to Weathertop and the Trollshaws, the players soon get involved into a campaign against the resurgent Kingdom Angmar. Mordirith, Steward of The Witch-king of Angmar is driven away from Carn Dûm, prompting Sauron's other servants - Amarthiel and Mordrambor - to vie for his position. Amarthiel, a former elf-smith of Eregion, used to wield a minor Ring of Power of her own, which she finds and reclaims it despite the player's efforts. Mordrambor betrays Amarthiel to Mordirith and kills her father Laerdan to mock her, however the grief allows Narmeleth, Amarthiel's original personality to resurface. To avenge her father, Narmeleth leads the player into the fortress of the enemy by secret ways, killing Mordrambor and destroying the Ring that controlled her along the way. She drives Mordirith away once again at the cost of her life, her redemption earning her peace in the Undying Lands.

Volume II: Mines of Moria
Under orders of King Dain Ironfoot, the Iron Garrison of dwarves from Erebor is sent to investigate and potentially reclaim Moria. By sheer luck, they arrive mere days after Gandalf had defeated Durin's Bane and threw the denizens of Moria into disarray. Using the power vacuum in the wake of the Balrog's demise, the dwarves quickly claim major ground and establish several footholds within Khazad-dûm, but their fortunes start to turn as the evil in Moria begins to unite under new leadership. Making an alliance with the Elves of Lothlorien the dwarves attempt to hold their ground when a emissary of Sauron arrives from Dol Guldur to put an end to their expedition. This story concludes in the Siege of Mirkwood expansion where the Galadhrim launch a major assault against Dol Guldur in an effort to draw the Eye of the enemy away from the Fellowship as it departs from Lorien.

Volume III: Allies of the King
The player joins the Grey Company led by Halbarad and the Sons of Elrond that rides south to the aid Aragorn in Rohan. The Rangers of the North encounter several perils, first losing several in Enedwaith and then suffering from a major betrayal in Dunland. Saruman's forces block the company's passage across the Fords of Isen and as the Rangers recuperate, Lady Galadriel summons the player to Lorien and urges them to follow the Fellowship down the river Anduin. Accompanied by a girl from Dunland, an elf from Lorien and a man from Rohan, the player tracks the Fellowship to the Falls of Rauros, after which they follow the Three Hunters into the land of Rohan where they become involved in the affairs of the local rulers. The player fights in the battle of Helm's Deep, after which they accompany King Théoden to confront Saruman at Orthanc where the Rangers of the North finally meet with Aragorn.

Volume IV: The Strength of Sauron
After the Grey Company follows into the Paths of the Dead, the player follows them and arrived into Gondor, now besieged by the Corsairs of Umbar. After making a stop at Dol Amroth, the player catches up with Aragorn's forces and takes part in the Battle of Pelargir, after which Aragorn bids them to find either Faramir or Gandalf in Minas Tirith while his men will sail up Anduin aboard the Corsair ships. Unable to pass through the enemy blockade at Harlond, the player takes a detour through Ithilien and eventually reaches the besieged Osgiliath, narrowly escaping with the remaining Ithilien Rangers and reaching the White City just as Faramir is shot by a Morgul dart and rendered unconscious. The player assists Gandalf in preparing the city for a siege and just before the city gates are shut is sent by the wizard to find King Théoden's forces. The player reunites with Riders of Rohan in the Drúedain forest and fights in the battle of the Pelennor Fields. They then join the assembled Host of the West that marches through North Ithilien into Dagorlad and fights at the Battle of the Black Gates from where they see the One Ring destroyed and the forces of Sauron finally defeated.

The Black Book of Mordor: Where the Shadows Lie
The Free Peoples of Middle-Earth begin to explore the lands of Mordor which were closed to them for over a thousand years. Assisting Gandalf, the player learns of the Gúrzyul – powerful servants of the Enemy which unlike the Nazgûl did not perish with him and continue to pose a danger to the people of Middle-Earth. One of the Gúrzyul known as Karazgar the Weeping Warrior has been suspiciously absent from the power struggle in Mordor, having escaped into the northern lands. The player character and Gandalf give chase after him, through the ruins of Dol Guldur into the halls of King Thranduil, eventually leading to the Kingdom Under the Mountain, now rules by Dain's son Thorin III. On an errand for Thorin III in the Iron Hills, the player finds an artifact from Mordor – a Black Book which they deliver to Gandalf for safekeeping. Karazgar's forces assault Erebor but are repelled, and a company of dwarves departs to reclaim their ancient strongholds in Ered Mithrin, believing them to be safe after the demise of Sauron. They battle against Karazgar until Gandalf reveals his weakness and learns that Karazgar desires the very book that he carries and Gandalf departs to the lands of Beornings to get the Black Book away from Karazgar. An encounter in the Gladden Fields sends Gandalf and the player back to Mordor, just as the forces of Gondor advance on Minas Morgul. The player joins Faramir's White Company and with the help of Gandalf and the Rangers manages to defeat Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul and second-in-command to the Witch-king of Angmar.

The Legacy of Durin and the Trials of the Dwarves
Emboldened by the success in the Grey Mountains, son of King Thorin III Prince Durin wishes to reclaim the ancestral dwarven stronghold of Gundabad. His Longbeards are joined by a host of dwarves from another clan of the East who also lay claim upon the Mountain-Home. Bolstered by reinforcements from Erebor and the Iron Garrison recently driven from Moria, the dwarves clash with the Orcs of Gundabad in front of ancestral peaks. They achieve a minor victory only to learn that Orcs are not their biggest problem: Gundabad has been claimed by a Frost-Dragon, her brood of drakes and their Hobgoblin servants. The host of dwarves make their way inside the mountain where they find the remaining survivors of Angmar involved in the conflict as well. Deep beneath Gundabad, Durin has an experience which causes him to remember his past lives and recognize himself as Durin the Seventh, the forefather of the dwarves returned. His ancient knowledge of Gundabad and its enemies allows the dwarves to gain an upper hand by pitting their opponents against one another. The Angmarim ally with Hobgoblins against the Orcs only to be betrayed by their master, while the death of the Son of Bolg throws the orcs and goblins into disarray. Eventually the dragon herself is defeated, allowing the dwarves to reclaim their ancient home and settle their differences for the common cause.

The Song of Waves and Wind
King Elessar travels the kingdom of Gondor with Queen Arwen to heal the scars of the War of the Ring while multiple factions battle for control of Umbar, across the Bay of Belfalas. These factions, including the Kindred of the Coins, the Heirs of Castamir and the Church of the All-seeing, threaten the newly won peace.

Development and release
Sierra On-Line announced the development of a licensed Middle-earth MMORPG in 1998. Sierra had financial troubles in 1999 and replaced the staff working on the game. Sierra continued to confirm development of the MMORPG but did not release any development details. Vivendi Universal Games, the parent company of Sierra, secured eight-year rights to produce computer and video games based on The Lord of the Rings books in 2001. Vivendi announced an agreement with Turbine in 2003 to produce Middle-earth Online, at that time expected to be released in 2004. In March 2005, Turbine announced that it had bought the rights to make a MMORPG based on Tolkien's literature and that Turbine would publish The Lord of the Rings Online instead of Vivendi. In February 2006, it was announced that Midway Games would co-publish the game with Turbine. A closed beta was announced on September 8, 2006. An open beta began on March 30, 2007, and was open to all who pre-ordered the game's Founders Club edition. On April 6, 2007, the beta opened to the public.

In April 2007, Salon.com reported that the game had dropped a planned feature for in-game player marriage because of the controversy around the possibility of same-sex and inter-species weddings. One developer stated that the design rule was for weddings to be allowed if examples could be found in the book, as between elves and humans. An online magazine for gay gamers, GayGamer.net, commented that while Tolkien was a devout Christian, his stance on gay rights remains unknown as the topic was not a public issue at the time. Video game critic Ian Bogost compared it to the case of The Sims 2, which did allow same-sex marriage three years prior.

In January 2014 it was announced that the license for The Lord of the Rings Online had been renewed between Turbine and Middle-earth Enterprises to 2017. Executive producer Aaron Campbell transferred to other duties in 2015, and Dungeons and Dragons Online franchise director Athena Peters replaced him. Peters announced a new roadmap for the future of Lord of the Rings Online, including improvements to the legendary item system, new fellowship quests, and various "quality of life" fixes. Also on the agenda for the summer of 2015 were server merges and new datacenters. On December 19, 2016, it was announced that Turbine would no longer develop the game; rather, a new independent game studio was formed under the name Standing Stone Games, to be staffed by the people that had been working on The Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons & Dragons Online under Turbine before. The publishing of the game would transfer from Warner Brothers to Daybreak Game Company. While a reason was not given for the transition, it was assured that the game would continue with new development.

Releases and subscription model
In North America, players who pre-ordered the game were offered a special founder's offer, a lifetime subscription for $199 or reduced cost of $9.99 per month. The standard monthly fee is $14.99 with three-, six-, and twelve-month renewal discounts. Lifetime discounts are similarly available. European players had a similar program from Codemasters. A holiday subscription was available in December 2007 and January 2008 for $9.99/month for a three-month commitment. A special edition, which cost $10 more than the regular edition, included a full-color manual, an item called "Glass of Aglaral", a cloak of regeneration, which is visually different from the one in the regular edition, a "Making of" DVD, a soundtrack, and a ten-day buddy key. The one-year anniversary edition included a $9.99/month subscription or a $199.99 Lifetime subscription, which was again offered during the lead-up to the release of Mines of Moria. However, the lifetime subscription option is no longer available and is unlikely to return.

On June 4, 2010, it was announced the game was to add a free-to-play option in the autumn, with an in-game store. Free-to-play was launched in North America on September 10, 2010. After a delay in Europe, free-to-play went live on November 2, 2010. During the following six months the company reported tripled revenues from the title. On April 26, 2011, it was announced that Codemasters would relinquish control of the European service back to Turbine, and on June 1, the servers were transferred. After a transition period of a few days, they reopened under a unified The Lord of the Rings Online global service. Finally, on June 6, 2012, The Lord of the Rings Online was made available for download on Steam. On November 1, 2012, a beta of the OS X version was released and a 64-bit client was added in June 2019. On April 20, 2022, the end of life for the 32-bit client was announced to be scheduled for January 1, 2023. At the same time as that announcement, to celebrate the game's 15th anniversary, all expansions and quest packs up to and including the game's Helm's Deep expansion were made permanently free to all players. In addition, all paying subscribers were given access to Standard Editions of the game's Mordor, Minas Morgul, and War of Three Peaks expansions for the duration of their subscription.

Soundtrack
The game features a variety of original music, with most regions and instances containing a selection of specific themes, most of which were composed by either acclaimed video game composer Chance Thomas or in-house composers including Stephen Digregorio, Geoff Scott, Brad Spears, Egan Budd, Matt Harwood and Bill Champagne. According to Thomas, all references that were made to the music of the peoples of Middle-earth in the books were used to extrapolate as much information as possible about the instruments and styles that each race would have used to create their music. This information was then used as the basis for creating the score. In the first two years of the game Thomas and DiGregorio each contributed roughly half of all music, which was released as a soundtrack CD available with the Special Edition of 2007's "Shadows of Angmar" or pre-order of 2008's Mines of Moria expansion, in addition to 61 songs that were made available for free in mp3 format using a download manager released by Turbine. Their collaboration continued on the Mines of Moria soundtrack, released as a CD with the Collector's Edition of the expansion.

Neither Siege of Mirkwood nor Rise of Isengard expansions received a dedicated soundtrack release, with no music added to the game between 2009 and 2012 made officially available until the Riders of Rohan expansion, for which Chance Thomas returned to work on LOTRO after years of absence, releasing a soundtrack available both on CD and as a digital download. Music for the next year's Helm's Deep expansion was entirely composed by Stephen DiGregorio and was released as an album on SoundCloud while music added between 2013 and 2017 was likewise not covered by any official releases. In 2017 Chance Thomas returned once more to contribute music to the game, releasing a soundtrack album for the Mordor expansion in addition to a commemorative 10th Anniversary Soundtrack, which covered a collection of his work for the game from all previous soundtracks. After Mordor all music so far has been composed by Bill Champagne, with full soundtracks for free updates and expansions alike released on the game's YouTube channel. The soundtrack for The Lord of the Rings Online has received much praise for its quality and variety.

In keeping with Tolkien's heavy use of song and music in his books, The Lord of the Rings Online has a player music sub-system akin to MIDI that has been the subject of a Harvard anthropological study. Characters on reaching level 5 can learn to play musical instruments, including Bagpipes, Clarinet, Cowbell, Drum, Harp, Horn, Lute, Pibgorn, and Theorbo. Using keyboard macros, instruments can be played in real time on three octaves and abc notation, with the music broadcast to nearby player characters. Players can also play pre-programmed pieces from user-created .ABC script files using the game's music notation, similar to MIDI files. Players often hold impromptu public performances, in solo or as bands at places such as The Prancing Pony Inn in Bree. Communities also regularly organize music events and mini-concerts such as "Weatherstock": Woodstock above the Weathertop. The sub-system has been described as "one of the most elaborate player-music systems in any MMORPG to date."

Reception
The Lord of the Rings Online received wide acclaim.

GameDaily awarded the game 9/10, praising its rich, fantasy-themed universe, well-integrated trait and title system, and a story that remains true to the works of Tolkien. Yahoo! Video Games wrote a review with few negative mentions, awarding the game a score of 4/5, while Computer and Video Games called the game an essential purchase for Lord of the Rings fans, scoring the game a 9.2/10. Eurogamer scored the game a 9.0/10, calling it tough to resist. GameSpy gave it 4.5/5 stars, claiming the game "opened up Middle-Earth to the masses" but commented negatively on its weak PvP content, while GameTrailers awarded it 8.5/10, citing its interesting tweaks to the MMO genre. IGN ranked it a similar 8.6/10, praising it for its solid experience, though criticizing it for its lack of major improvements to the genre. The New York Times called the game "a major achievement of interactive storytelling, the first game truly worthy of the ‘Lord of the Rings ' franchise and a must-play for just about anyone with an interest in Tolkien or the future of online entertainment." In a GameSpot review, the product was awarded an 8.3/10, praising its appealing polish and intriguing Monster Play feature. GamePro 's review gave it an overall 4.25/5, pointing out how engaging the epic quests are, as well as how faithful to the novels the game managed to stay.

GameSpy declared The Lord of the Rings Online 'Game of the Month' for May 2007. Midway announced that the game sold over 172,000 copies in North America during its second quarter.

In August 2007, Codemasters announced that The Lord of the Rings Online had received five Golden Joystick Awards nominations for the five applicable categories for the game, and in October 2007 that it had won the "PC Game of the Year" at these awards. It won the same award again in October 2008.

In 2007, GameSpy awarded The Lord of the Rings Online 6th place in the top ten PC games of the year. Turbine also won the GameSpy MMO of the Year award.

During the 11th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, The Lord of the Rings Online received a nomination for "Massively Multiplayer Game of the Year" by the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences.

In 2010, RPGFan's Adam Tingle named The Lord of the Rings Online the best MMORPG of all time in a top-10 countdown while RPGLand gave its "Best Free-to-Play MMORPG" annual award. That year, the NPD Group reported that the game was "the third most played massively multiplayer role-playing game" with Turbine citing their free-to-play model as the reason for the growing subscriber base.

In January 2011, PC Gamer chose The Lord of the Rings Online as the MMO of the year. Praise was given for treating fans to two new Epic Books' worth of quests, two added regions, expansion of in-game events, improved UI elements, and the revamp of the character creation and starter regions. Also noted was the success of the move to free-to-play, stating that The Lord of the Rings Online is "quickly redefining the way a successful subscriptionless MMO is run."

In both 2018 and 2019, gaming blog Massively (formerly known as Joystiq) rated The Lord of the Rings Online as Most Underrated MMORPG of the year for its expansions and updates, vast, diverse world, some excellent storytelling, and a friendly and dedicated community.

title: The Lord of the Rings Online


text:
Jean-Yves Roy

Jean-Yves Roy (born July 21, 1949) is a retired Canadian politician. He was a Bloc Québécois member of the House of Commons of Canada from the 2000 election until his resignation in 2010.

Political career
Born in Saint-Charles-Garnier, Quebec, Roy represented the districts of Matapédia—Matane until 2006 and then Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for the following four years. Prior to being elected he was a teacher. He is the Bloc's Fisheries and Oceans critic. He was a city councillor in Pointe-au-Père, Quebec in 1981, and he was mayor from 1982 to 1986.

Roy resigned from the House effective October 22, 2010 after having been largely absent from the House of Commons. He had been asked by Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe to make a decision as to his future due to his prolonged absences and announced in September that he would wait until after the Commons voted on a private members bill to abolish the long gun registry to resign so that he could vote for the registry's retention.

title: Jean-Yves Roy