text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:16

I am re-opening this VfD in line with the expansion of this to include very verse of John 20. See Votes for deletion/John 20. Please vote below the colored box. RickK 09:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Oldak Quill 20:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John 20:16
Original research. The original poster (I almost wrote "creator") indicates that he/she intends to create an article to discuss every Bible passage. RickK 07:42, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to explain every single verse in any written work, and as RickK said above, it looks like the writer intends someone to write articles on other verses too. -- KittySaturn 08:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia, to include some information about every passage of the gospel. A lot of (Christian) people might very well be interested in such articles, and if Wikipedia can provide good, neutral information about every passage, then I think it is only positive. Also, the article is in my opinion not a low quality article, and include some good references. Stereotek 08:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have a friend who is an established atheist (he willingly gets into impromptu debates) but he regularly reads the Bible because he feels that it is a good source of morals. He doesn't believe that all the stories are true, he just believes that they are parables. Besides, if someone wants to read the Bible, but doesn't have their own copy, wouldn't it be good for them to have a resource that they can refer to that has commentary built in? Stale Fries 15:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of online resources for such people (Eg. ). Wikipedia is NOT one of them. It is an encyclopedia.--ZayZayEM 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from the reason stated by RickK and KittySaturn, I think this kind of material is better suited at Wikibooks or some other sibling project.. --EnSamulili 08:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwikify. Very improtant information, even i (as anti-christian church as one gets) would find such an article a worthwile addition to wiki. Hope to see more in the future. Beta_M talk, |contrib ( Ë-Mail )
 * That was what I was thinking too. It is not because that the information is not good that it should be deleted; rather, it should appear somewhere else. -- KittySaturn 10:10, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a worthy project, but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Divine Comedy is a good example of a work that is Encyclopedic in scope, where one can literally write pages of material for every passage. Indeed, there is a 6 volume encyclopedia that does just that. But if someone where to try and do that on Wikipedia, it likely would not be accepted. In the same sense, The Bible is certainly the greatest literature in the world, but I don't see Wikipedia as a "bible encyclopedia" (they do exist). There are many specialized encyclopedias in the world. I would say keep if this was a "notable" passage. --Stbalbach 09:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There is no reason why this, and every other Biblical verse cannot have an article on Wikipedia - and I'm not even a Christian! Wikipedia, is afterall, not paper. Ultimately, there is no reasonable reason to not include such articles in Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 09:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't matter to you that this is original research? RickK 09:44, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it is original research? --Oldak Quill 09:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there certainly aren't any references, or any names that the article mentions that make these claims. They're just baldly-stated opinions disguised as facts.  RickK 09:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not recall a lack of references ever being a qualification for deletion. The article does not put forth any particular POV or controvetial statements. I think it is a simple matter of requesting that the writer simply supply references. --Oldak Quill 10:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not original research. It's a pretty normal explanation of the passage. DJ Clayworth 22:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi OldakQuill, you mentioned that there is no reason why not every verse shouldn't have an article. But don't you think it belongs somewhere else, like Wikibooks as suggested above?  Since for one thing we wouldn't even include the full text of the Bible here, let alone commentary... -- KittySaturn 10:14, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no reason why every single verse cannot have an article if they are well written, factually accurate, and varifiable. I do not think it should be on Wikibooks as these would be essentially encyclopaedic articles - Wikibooks serves to hold coherent projects on non-encyclopaedic isseus (such as WikiJuniors and language learning). A full text of the bible is located at Wikisources - we could add anchors to the text at each verse and link straight to them. Verses are so short, in general, that their full text may be included in the encyclopaedic articles about them. Nothing in the Wikipedia deletion policy justified the deletion of this article. --Oldak Quill 10:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crackerbarrel theology is no more simple-minded than a separate entry for every failed garage band or every Pokemon character, so I would have voted Abstain except for the Links section: imagine the list of links at many entries if this is encouraged.... --Wetman 10:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have studied the Bible at University - not some trailer a Fundamentalist has set up in his backyard, but a well respected secular University in Australia. The Bible is both historical and literary. The level of detail that Biblical scholars (from all theological persuasions) have worked on in the past 4-500 years is almost unmatched in any other area of human scholastic endeavour. We're not talking about "Crackerbarrel theology", we're talking about the study of divinity. One Salient Oversight 05:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'''THIS IS A HOT TOPIC THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS. WE NEED JIMBO TO MAKE HIS OPINIONS KNOWN.''' --One Salient Oversight 05:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly not original research, having read both references. It is what it has to be: terciary source. I (and I think everybody) would really love to read pages of material for every passage of Divine Comedy. For this Bible matter, it also would be great if we could have at each article/passage the interpretation of each different church which worship the Bible and, maybe, scholar version of what really happened (if applicable). --euyyn 10:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a bible. Darwinek 11:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles on the bible does not render something a bible. This is hardly reasonable justification. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imagine that there is a Wikipedia entry for every verse of the Bible. Each entry contains a few different translations of the verse, along with a summary of the context in which the verse occurs. By starting at the Genesis 1:1 link, and following the Next Verse links, it would be possible to read the entire Bible in Wikipedia, in several different translations at once, but with an enormous amount of redundant summarizing. The entire text of the Bible does not become encyclopedic just because it is entered a verse at a time. --Zarquon 11:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper, nor does the keeping or deletion of this article mean we will have an article on EVERY verse. Please vote on this verse alone, policy may be made elsewhere. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this material, especially since it's discussing a particularly important event. But please don't try to do it verse-by-verse, do it in larger chunks. Every verse needs too much context, even this one doesn't contain enough by itself. So hopefully merge this with a larger unit. Kappa 11:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to agree that this should be split up into chunks. Most Bibles (if not all) come pre-organized in chunks that make sense, with titles that summarize the contents of each chunk. Stale Fries 15:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we can have a separate page on each article, clause and amendment of the US Constitution, then why not on each of the more interesting (but not all!) verses of the Bible? – Kpalion (talk) 13:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for all reasons stated above. adamsan 13:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and if some parts are original research, remove them, I'm not saying they are. bbx 13:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe that this page matches any of the conditions for deletion, in and of itself. So long as the article is well written.  In addition, rather than simply getting 16 different christian outlooks on a given verse, we will also get different outlooks.  When he gets around to Ezekiel 25:17 we can add a reference to it's use in Pulp Fiction, and for John 3:16 Stone Cold Steve Austin 3:16 might be appropriate.
 * Keep. This level of detail is precisely what makes wikipedia interesting. If we want to be the "sum of human knowledge" nothing can be too specialized. Linking can be a practical problem - but in practice it's highly unlikely every verse will have its lemma. If views are too personal, objectify them. If research is too original (a very rare occasion) find better supported data. MWAK--84.27.81.59 13:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If passages in the bible are allowed, where does it stop? The Qur'an, the Talmud, the Tao Ching? Every last sonnet by Shakespeare? Alex.tan 13:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? It would be still more interesting and valid for an encyclopedia than articles on every character in The Simpsons. – Kpalion (talk) 13:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. Keep. Samaritan 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An emphatic keep. I would strongly support an article on any Bible verse, or on various divisions of any major religious text. Everyking 14:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would, however, encourage articles about longer passages rather than single verses for most of the Bible. —Bkell 14:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no valid reason for deletion. MMCarvalho.
 * Delete.  Dare I call it bible-cruft?   It is unencyclopedic to have articles on specific Bible passages, and I'm appalled at the idea that someone is going to start writing articles on every passage in the Bible.   If someone argues that if it is unencyclopedic to have an article about every Bible passage then it is unencyclopedic to have one on every Star Trek episode: Yes, true, that is what the despised deletionists have been trying to tell you.   A general encyclopedia gives an overview and summary of every topic of note within human knowledge.   But general encyclopedias are just one kind of book in the library; they don't aim to *be* the library. Wikipedia does not replace the Internet or the Library of Congress.   Among the other books in the library besides general encyclopedias are "encyclopedias" on specific topics, the "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", the "Encyclopedia of Jazz", or the "Encyclopedia of American High Schools", etc.   Is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia? Or is it the "Encyclopedia of X for all X?    The two are not the same, and the inability to decide is tearing the place apart.  The "Encyclopedia of X, for all X" should be organized differently than a general encyclopedia, for one thing. Somehow this must be decided.  Regarding this specific article: it is original research. Even if it were cleaned up, it shouldn't be an article. If this passage it is an especially notable passage, it should be covered in one of the serveral articles that we already have on Bible topics. --BM 14:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if Wikipedia was treated as though it were indeed paper despite the general understanding that it is not, then we would have far fewer readers and far fewer editors, and those of us who were left would be doing a lot less good. Everyking 14:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't have articles on notable passages in the Bible, Quran, Bhaghavad Gita, Torah or whatever though I don't think all passages from such belong here - more in wikibooks. -- Francs2000 | Talk  14:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwikibooks. Major verses could be encyclopedic, and this one probably is.  But a project to do the same on every verse (per Talk:John 20:16) is more detail than is appropriate here, and John 20:16 will work much better in that context.  Furthermore, while this particular article is not original research, an expanded project will almost certainly devolve in that direction. —Korath (Talk) 15:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, please justify in terms of this article - not some concept of "an article on every single verse". Regardless, Wikipedia is not paper, and these articles are certainly not in too much depth. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the creator I obviously want this to be kept. I am shocked that some see this as original research, since I am far from a Biblical scholar and am not even a believer and couldn't do such research if I wanted to.  Almost all the information comes from the two sites I listed as references.  While I would be delighted to see an article on every verse, I do not intend to create them any time soon as I do not have the expertise or the interest, but I hope that this pilot article encourages others to work in this area.  My hope is that in several years we might have the whole Bible covered. - SimonP 15:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that the charges against this article are pretty much settled, based on what I have have seen. The author has just stated that almost none of the research is original, and that all of the third-party research can be found at the two links at the bottom. Also, about the dilemma of having an "article to discuss every Bible passage" has been at least been fixed by having larger portions of text for each page, essentially condensing the amount of "paper" used. Based on this, I think this is a Keep. Stale Fries 16:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Line-by line textual analysis of individual books spread across masses of individual articles is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. This presents an almost unimaginably vast potential for original research submissions and never-ending POV wars across masses of articles.  And, finally, you know that something is a bad idea if if makes the Digimon-cruft look reasonable in comparison. Transwiki or Delete. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed above. We would just create articles with bigger passages on each page, reducing the amount of "wasted paper". I have to admit that the discussion of this verse may be lengthy, and some people might not like that. But, I do know that their are people out there who would suck up all that information and would ask "is that it? But I don't know everything I was wondering about!" Keep. Stale Fries 16:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate for this encyclopedia. At least when it comes to major religious works that have been analyzed innumerable times over the centuries. If the thought of having more content scares you, well, you could just carve out one little corner of the encyclopedia to work on and just forget the rest of it exists. Everyking 16:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hesitant keep ONLY if this is considered a major verse (also isn't this the verse you see on billboards, etc?). There are tens of thousands of verses in the Bible and I do not support the idea of every one having an article. Being included in the Bible is not, IMO, necessarily a sole criteria for notability. Perhaps the creation of a Bible-Wiki should be considered if that's the case. But I'm OK with keeping articles on major verses, but I'm not well-versed enough with the Bible (no pun intended) to judge whether this is one or not. Also, interpretations of the Bible range so widely that I fear the more controversial ones would turn this place into a battleground. 23skidoo 16:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't have an article on every verse in the Bible.  Particularly notable ones?  Fine.  John_3:16 makes sense; it's a particularly notable verse, and often referred to by chapter and verse.  This verse doesn't rise to that level of notability. Josh Cherry 16:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote is on a single verse, not the presence of all verses being on Wikipedia. Please therefore vote with this in mind. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scared by the "Gosepl of John" (sic) box underneath, which implies articles on ALL bible verses. All bible verses, no. Notable ones, OK. Niteowlneils 17:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The prospect of deleting an article on a notable Bible verse is what scares me. On the other hand, I can safely say that having more information on similar topics does not frighten me at all. Everyking 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are many places to discuss Bible verses. Wikipedia is not one of them. Carrp | Talk 18:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and I'm an atheist. If there was some sort of threshold policy for allowing articles on Biblical passages, it could lead to Wikipedians wasting a vast amount of time arguing about each case which they could otherwise spend editing articles, so let's allow the lot. The whole of the Bible is really important, though I probably won't ever read any of the articles. Philip 18:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge. Darwinek says above "Wikipedia is not a bible". This article is not the Bible it is exegesis which is thoroughly encyclopedic. Everybody has forgotten their Latin - the article noli me tangere (John 20:17) has been there since 13 September 2003 without ever suffering a VfD debate. I think these articles will be allowed if we allay people's fears about "an article for every verse of the bible". I recommend a speedy merge of John 20:16, John 20:17, and noli me tangere into a single article covering John 20:11-18. -- RHaworth 18:54, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion if article is NPOV and no original research. If someone makes an encylopedic entry for each verse (or longer as suggested above) which meets those guidelines then they should all be allowed in because Wiki is not paper (see no size limit argument)
 * Strong Delete as original research, further, this is not (IMO) a helpful theological classification, since it promotes lots of content duplication. Wyss 21:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is original research. Why does it promote lots of content duplication? --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, POV and probably not salvageable as such. I don't think size is a problem, but it sets the precedent for Wikipedia to contain a full biblical commentary. When this happens, it will be nearly impossible to avoid POV from creeping in, edit wars when someone else notices, and so on. Creates opportunity not only for Christian vs. Christian debates, but for non-Christian attacks on Christianity as well. Also note that this isn't John 3:16 that shows up on billboards etc. that someone above suggested. Wesley 22:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Potential conflict and controversy is irrelevant. We've never shied away from topics for that reason. Edit wars are a fact of life here. Everyking 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The theology here is pretty standard - no original research or POV. More people read the Bible than watch Star Trek. Some people teach whole lectures on short bible passages. So why shouldn't we have articles on key passages. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Count another atheist voting 'keep. Any Bible verse should be a legitimate topic, as long as it's written in a manner appropriate to Wikipedia, which this appears to be. No more or less subject to POV issues than a thousand other topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * If keeping this will lead to an article on every Bible passage then Delete. This is a bad idea. Have an artricle on each book, perhaps some for individual chapters, when necessary, but not each verse. This isn't Bible camp. -R. fiend 23:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and pass on the WikiCities link - A project explaining the verses of the bible sounds just up their alley. humblefool® 23:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe have an article for multiple verses, instead of verse by verse. --Matteh (talk) 00:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if the article did include "original research" (which I don't believe), that is only a reason to delete an article if the subject itself is original research (i.e., someone's pet scientific theory), not just if the article's content may include original research about the subject, in which case editing would be the solution.  I disagree with above request to merge with surrounding verses; I actually came across this looking for a separate article on noli me tangere and was delighted to find one.  After a couple milennia of scholarship and translations, I'd be surprised if there wasn't an article's worth of information to give about every Bible verse.  Postdlf 00:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV original research. Also allowing this precedent will open a Biblical floodgate on an article for every verse or chapter in the Bible. This would in the long term IMO not be in the best interests for Wikipedia. Megan1967 02:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Desperately needs merging as suggested above. Bible verses date from the 16th century and are not appropriate "units" for discussing Biblical text; they are useful as references, not as snippets misconstrued as being meaningful in isolation. As we says elsewhere, "the impulse of people to conceive of verses as units of syntactical meaning, though baseless, is strong... Interpretation of isolated verses often leads to imputed meanings that are at odds with those that would be derived from the same words in their Biblical context." If Wikipedia is to have useful articles concerning Biblical content, they can't be based on verses. Previous experiments along these lines have pretty effectively demonstrated this. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Delete. Start up a Biblewiki if you want.  Flyers13 03:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete from Wikipedia. Seems like an appropriate exercise for Wikibooks however.  Rossami (talk) 05:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Keep. The Bible is one of the most widely read books in human history and its contents have been at the basis of many decisions made by leaders throughout this history. Sometimes these actions can depend upon the interpretation of a particular verse. Many of you do not realise that Bible commentaries come from a wide variety of commentators, from conservative evangelical to atheistic liberal. Every commentator seeks to explain what a verse is about and understand it from a linguistic, grammatical and historical perspective. I am one who will argue very strongly for Wikipedia articles that cover every verse in the Bible (which does not mean an article for every verse). Because Wikipedia is not a religious publishing company, these articles should (eventually) reflect every single point of view about the verse, along with refutations of every point of view. If you go to your local university library you will find many books from many different points of view that examine certain books and verses in the Bible, and what they mean. Go to Size_comparisons - you will find that the 10,000 monographs on Chemical compounds are listed as a potential growth area in Wikipedia, along with each of the 20,000 human genes, 24,500 common law legal terms and so on. These should get a mention, why not Bible verses? There is a growing multitude of Christian theology-related articles and many of these articles refer back to Bible verses. Maintaining NPOV will be a problem, but even if an article on a verse is written badly, then the solution is a re-write, not a deletion. Ask this question - in ten years time when Wikipedia hits 100 million articles, do you expect that Bible verses be included in this? Please check my userpage for the many Christian theology related articles that I have been working on. --One Salient Oversight 05:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. -- RHaworth 08:09, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

 * Another vote to Keep. The Bible is certainly a major subject, regardless of one's religious beliefs, and there is worthwhile information to be written all the way down to the level of individual verses. MK2 07:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(No vote - I voted above.) I have just taken a brief trip over to Category:Sura. I am bitterly disappointed to find that most of the articles within it are merely stubs. But I think it sets a precedent for Biblical articles to be at the Chapter level rather than the verse level.

The terms POV and NPOV are being used by the deletionists in this discussion without making clear whether they mean: Consider the following: The first is totally NPOV - it is central to the Creed of those Christian sects which have one. The second is barefaced evangelism and has no place in Wikipedia.
 * different POV's among Christians - of which sadly there are many but which I think Wiki can handle
 * differing POV's between Christians and other religions - which is something which must be discussed and above all accepted.
 * "Christians accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour"
 * "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved"

May I propose the following boilerplate to be made into a template and inserted into every New Testament article in Category:Bible verses (with ones similar in spirit for the Old Testament and Apocrypha)

Digression. I remember attending a service conducted by Hugh Montefiore. Before we sang the hymn The Church's one foundation, Hugh requested that we remain silent on the words yet one o'er all the earth on the grounds that Christians are far from being one. -- RHaworth 09:08, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Please. That's a load of hogs-wallop. You are asserting that all Christians should beleive that all faiths are on an equal plain as their own. I don't think so. That's just relativity. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this alternative? MK2 08:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What does that phrase even mean, "but which deserve equal respect?" Do you have any basis for asserting that this is the view of "most Christians," or are you prescribing what you would like it to be? The first version was certainly that, when it said "all right-thinking Christians..." reminded me of the Monty Python sketch about all "right-thinking people." Wesley 04:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Significant Bible passages appear to be legitimate topics for articles (not necessarily every single verse, but in many cases individual verses are important). But an emphatic no to the template suggested by RHaworth. The articles should not represent "a consensus of what professing Christians believe"! There is no way that could be NPOV, and where does that leave Jewish interpretations of passages in the Hebrew Bible? The articles have to represent the views of academic Bible scholars and historians. References to reputable scholarly publications are essential here. / up land 09:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My grovelling apologies re the boiler plate. To see Christian and Jewish interpretations of Old Testament verses together in the same article is exactly what I want. -- RHaworth 19:23, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

 * Keep I think that they should be here. Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I voted for delete above. However, I think the most notable verses of the Bible or comparable works do deserve an article (I wouldn't vote to delete John 3:16), but absolutely, absolutely not every verse - I don't see why an encyclopaedia would do something like that.  If someone wants to do a project to explain every Bible verse, they should set up another wiki elsewhere on the web, and it will be a lot more effective because people wanting to know about Bible verses will go there, whereas people don't expect an encyclopaedia to have this sort of material.  It is not a matter of Wiki is not paper; if appropriate an encyclopaedia will include it even if it is paper, just like volumes after volumes of the printed Oxford Dictionary.  Anyway, instead, in my opinion, there can be articles that discuss more than one verse, or a chapter.  However, I am still of the opinion that this kind of articles belongs to a more specialised site than one like Wikipedia.  As an example, there seems to be an abundance of maths articles in Wikipedia, but people who want to know about this mathematical term or that mathematical object will tend to go to a site that is specifically mathematical like MathWorld, so those articles in Wikipedia seem actually somewhat useless. -- KittySaturn 10:38, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * So presumably we should have no maths entries as MathWorld is more specialised, no film entries because imdb is better, no country entries because heck the CIA world factbook exists? Why bother with anything at all, people can just google right? Fuzz 12:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I see nothing wrong with the article so far. Wikipedia should be able to accommodate anything that is factual and accurate. Let's see where this project goes. Shantavira 12:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is little evidence that the article or the verse it refers to is accurate. Wyss 13:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Strong delete. Whatever. Listen, we can make a WikiBible if you guys want. But the base nature of Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia, not a textual commentary. Furthermore, the WikiBible Project would be its own self-contained project about specific knowledge regarding a specific field. It is simply too big of a project to include a Bible commentary in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to engulf PubMed, and it is not meant to engulf an ongoing Biblical commentary. We already have things like Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, et cetera. That is how the Wikipedia is meant to operate--with encyclopedia articles. Again, the WikiBible looks nice, but it deserves its own project, and is too specific for the WikiBible. Drostie 03:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I would be adverse to a paagr in every vere of the bible, this appears to a significant one. The article itself is comprehensive and well written exploring its meaning and cultural impact. Capitalistroadster 16:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep. I see no problem with Wikipedia entries for notable Biblical passages likely to be referred to elsewhere.  Note that I don't believe there is any reason for an entry on every verse in the Bible.  That level of granularity is best addressed by a well-stocked library. --TenOfAllTrades 00:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are but few single Biblical verses so notable they merit their own articles, and this is not one of them.  However, I see no problem for articles for each individual book of the Bible.  Edeans 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia should have articles on each book of the Bible. For some books, a separate article on each chapter may be justified. But not an entire article on every single verse. (Can anyone imagine a Wikipedia-worthy article being written on, say, Matthew 1:13 or Genesis 36:41?) John 20 is a very significant chapter in Christianity, but an article covering the entire chapter is sufficient. --Angr 15:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Matthew 1:13? - SimonP 17:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I definitely want WP to explain what, if anything, is known about these names, but please at least deal with the whole list of begetters in one chunk. I can't even tell how far it is froom the beginning and end. Kappa 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Delete. And ditto for all similar articles. I think an article on each book (including Gnostics) should be enough for Wikipedia. Any analysis of verses is likely to be severely P.O.V. (Even if its only a generalised Christian P.O.V.) - Also an attempt would be needed to be made to do likewise for the Qu'ran, and then every Hindu sacred text (and they can get pretty long).--ZayZayEM 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Any subject can be dealt with according to NPOV. POV, or potential to become POV, is no reason to delete anything. And saying that we would need similar articles for other religious texts would be like saying to delete an article on James Buchanan if there wasn't one on Millard Fillmore. Everyking 13:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. And ditto for all similar articles. I think an article on each book (including Gnostics) should be enough for Wikipedia. (all else was accessory). I think individual verses should be deleted on grounds of notability and encyclopedic value.--ZayZayEM 07:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Drostie - right on the money Albatross2147 14:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - WikiMedia does not operate in content forks, only media forks. Such a WikiBible would be a forking of Wikimedia content with no difference in media. There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia cannot contain articles on individual verses. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

 * Keep, again. Everyking 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would consider this an invalid listing. It has already been nominated and, by community consensus, it was kept. --Oldak Quill 09:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * People get to nominate articles as often as they like. Kappa 10:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 10:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep as per original decision after this VfD debate - there is no new information. As RickK had already highlighted when opening this VfD on 5 Feb that "The original poster (I almost wrote "creator") indicates that he/she intends to create an article to discuss every Bible passage."  All previous votes were thus aware that there was that intention.  We now have another vote going at Votes for deletion/John 20 - why two votes simultaneously, why revote when no new info? --AYArktos 10:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep again, as per OldakQuill and Kappa. — mark ✎ 19:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. up land 07:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Again. Still not original research, still notable, still encyclopedic Fuzz 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
File:Michelangelo-The Fall from Grace.JPEG

Michelangelo: The Fall from Grace

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


text: User talk:69.234.73.18

title: User talk:69.234.73.18


text: Category:Companies of Taiwan

title: Category:Companies of Taiwan


text: User talk:212.100.250.214

title: User talk:212.100.250.214


text:
Nancy Olson

Nancy Ann Olson (born July 14, 1928) is an American retired actress. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in Sunset Boulevard (1950). She co-starred with William Holden in four films, and later appeared in The Absent-Minded Professor (1961) and its sequel, Son of Flubber (1963), as well as the disaster film Airport 1975 (1974). Olson retired from acting in the mid-1980s, although she has made a few rare returns, most recently in 2014.

Early life
Olson was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 14, 1928, and raised there, along with her brother, David.

Her parents were Evelyn Bertha (née Bergstrom), who was of Swedish descent, and Henry John Olson, a physician.

Career
Olson was signed to a film contract by Paramount Pictures in 1948, and, after a few supporting roles, producers began to consider her for more prominent parts. She was up for the role of Delilah in Cecil B. DeMille's film Samson and Delilah (1949), for which Olson later said she was not suited. She was passed over in favor of Hedy Lamarr.

Her first big role came in Canadian Pacific (also 1949) with Randolph Scott, then Billy Wilder cast her for his upcoming project. In Sunset Boulevard (1950), she played Betty Schaefer, for which she gained an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Her pairing with William Holden was considered a success, and she appeared with him in three other films (Union Station, Force of Arms, and Submarine Command, the second and third released the following year), but none repeated their success in Sunset Boulevard.

Olson's success in "Sunset Boulevard" also led to her being cast in the 09/15/1950 episode of the radio program Dimension X, titled "Hello Tomorrow".

Other film credits include Big Jim McLain (1952), So Big (1953), Battle Cry (1955), and Dumbbells (2014).

Olson made several appearances in films for the Walt Disney studio. The Absent-Minded Professor (1961) and Son of Flubber (1963) paired her with Fred MacMurray and were popular with movie-goers. She also appeared alongside Hayley Mills in Pollyanna (1960) and Dean Jones in Snowball Express (1972). Olson then moved to New York City where she appeared on Broadway.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, she did guest roles on television. Olson guest-starred on the Television series The Big Valley playing the mother of Ron Howard in the December 1, 1965, episode titled Night of the Wolf. Olson is the only female guest starring on The Big Valley to ever marry the character Nick Barkley.

Olson has been retired since the mid-1980s, although she made a brief, uncredited appearance in Flubber, the 1997 remake of The Absent-Minded Professor.

Personal life
In 1950, Olson became the third wife of lyricist Alan Jay Lerner. They had two daughters, Liza and Jennifer. They divorced in 1957.

In 1962, she married long-time Capitol Records executive Alan W. Livingston, best known for creating Bozo the Clown and for signing Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland and other singers to Capitol. He died in 2009; they had one son, Christopher.

Olson is a registered Democrat and has donated to the party under her married name.

title: Nancy Olson


text:
Nancy Friday

Nancy Colbert Friday (August 27, 1933 – November 5, 2017) was an American author who wrote on the topics of female sexuality and liberation. Her writings argue that women have often been reared under an ideal of womanhood, which was outdated and restrictive, and largely unrepresentative of many women's true inner lives, and that openness about women's hidden lives could help free women to truly feel able to enjoy being themselves. She asserts that this is not due to deliberate malice, but due to social expectation, and that for women's and men's benefit alike it is healthier that both be able to be equally open, participatory and free to be accepted for who and what they are.

Biography
Nancy Friday was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the daughter of Walter F. Friday and Jane Colbert Friday (later Scott). She grew up in Charleston, South Carolina, and attended the only local girls' college-preparatory school, Ashley Hall, where she graduated in 1951. She then attended Wellesley College in Massachusetts, where she graduated in 1955. She worked briefly as a reporter for the San Juan Island Times and subsequently established herself as a magazine journalist in New York City, England, and France before turning to writing full-time.

Her first book, published in 1973, was My Secret Garden, a compilation of her interviews with women discussing their sexuality and fantasies, which became a bestseller. Friday regularly returned to the interview format in her subsequent books on themes ranging from mothers and daughters to sexual fantasies, relationships, jealousy, envy, feminism, BDSM, and beauty. After the publication of The Power of Beauty (released in 1996, and then renamed and re-released in paperback form in 1999), she wrote little, contributing an interview of porn star Nina Hartley to XXX: 30 Porn Star Portraits, a book published in 2004 by photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, with her final book being Beyond My Control: Forbidden Fantasies in an Uncensored Age, published in 2009.

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s she was a frequent guest on television and radio programs such as Politically Incorrect, Oprah, Larry King Live, Good Morning America, and NPR's Talk of the Nation. She also created a website in the mid-1990s, to complement the publication of The Power of Beauty. Initially conceived as a forum for the development of new work and interaction with her diverse audience, it was not updated in later years.

Despite the judgment of Ms. magazine ("This woman is not a feminist"), she predicated her career on the belief that feminism and the appreciation of men are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Literary motivation
Friday explained how "in the late 1960s I chose to write about women's sexual fantasies because the subject was unbroken ground, a missing piece of the puzzle ... at a time in history when the world was suddenly curious about sex and women's sexuality." The backdrop was a widespread belief that "women do not have sexual fantasies ... are by and large destitute of sexual fantasy."

Friday considered that "more than any other emotion, guilt determined the story lines of the fantasies in My Secret Garden . . . women inventing ploys to get past their fear that wanting to reach orgasm made them Bad Girls." Her later book, My Mother/My Self, 'grew immediately out of My Secret Garden's questioning of the source of women's terrible guilt about sex."

When she returned 20 years later to her original topic of women's fantasies in Women on Top, it was in the belief that "the sexual revolution" had stalled: "it was the greed of the 1980s that dealt the death blow ... the demise of healthy sexual curiosity."

Friday, like other feminists, was especially concerned with the controlling role of the images of "Nice Woman ... Nice Girl" —of being "bombarded from birth with messages about what a 'good woman' is ... focused so hard and so long on never giving in to 'selfishness.'" However, as feminism itself developed "a stunning array of customs, opinions, moral values, and beliefs about how the world of women ... should conduct itself," so too it ran into the difficulty of moralism versus human nature—the fact that "feminism—any political philosophy—does not adequately address sexual psychology" eventually sparking the 'feminist "sex wars" ... from the early 1980s" onwards. Against that backdrop, Friday's evidential and empirical concerns continue to address the "open question of how many of their sexual freedoms the young women ... will retain, how deeply they have incorporated them."

Criticism
"Critics have labeled Friday's books unscientific, because the author solicited responses", thus potentially biasing the contributor pool.

My Secret Garden was greeted by a "salvo from the media accusing me of inventing the whole book, having made up all the fantasies"; My Mother/My Self was "initially ... violently rejected by both publishers and readers"; while Women on Top "was heavily criticized for its graphic and sensational content."

Friday was also criticized for her reaction to the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal affair, which critics interpreted as sexist. The journalist Jon Ronson wrote "In February 1998, the feminist writer Nancy Friday was asked by the New York Observer to speculate on Lewinsky's future. 'She can rent out her mouth,' she replied."

Personal life
Friday married novelist Bill Manville in 1967, separated from him in 1980, and divorced him in 1986. Her second husband was Norman Pearlstine, formerly the editor in chief of Time Inc. They were married at the Rainbow Room in New York City on July 11, 1988, and divorced in 2005.

In 2011, Friday sold her home in Key West and moved to New York City.

Nancy Friday died at her home in Manhattan from complications of Alzheimer's disease on November 5, 2017, at the age of 84.

title: Nancy Friday


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-07/Proxies

Continued concerns about the use of anonymizing proxy IP addresses prompted an effort last week to implement widespread blocks of such IPs, but technical problems forced the project to be put on hold.

These IPs, known as open proxies, have a reputation for being primarily a source of vandalism, as well as being used by blocked users to circumvent their editing restrictions. To deal with the problem, Fvw made a proposal to use a bot that would identify and block such proxies.

Routine blocking of open proxies originally began in February 2004 after discussion on the English Wikipedia mailing list. It was initially done by having the servers scan IP addresses when they attempted to edit, and blocking those that were identified as proxies. However, the regular scanning was disabled after a while. Since then, administrators have blocked open proxies when they are discovered editing Wikipedia, rather than trying to identify them systematically.

Fvw initially proposed running a bot to block proxies on 23 January. He offered to collect lists from websites that publish the IPs of anonymizing proxies, verify them and then block the IP.

Problems with proxy blocking
Korath raised some concerns, first of all with having a bot use admin privileges, and the possibility that innocent victims of a trojan horse might get blocked. In response, Fvw pointed out that proxies would not be blocked based on scans, which would create fewer such problems, and that a real administrator would be likely to block the proxy if discovered just as the bot would. Nearly all of the other comments on Wikipedia talk:Bots were supportive of Fvw's idea.

When Fvw actually began running the bot last Thursday, however, new problems came up and forced him to shut down the bot. According to Jamesday, the current block-checking code is executed every time someone tries to edit a page, and the work involved is dependent on the cumulative total of blocks in place, with the potential to slow the technical side of the editing process considerably. Accordingly, he asked, "If you're aware of any blocks not in place to deal with actual vandalism, please remove them until the programming changes are known to be in place on the live site."

Improved code to deal with these issues may be in place in a few months. In the meantime, Fvw undid the bot-created blocks pending the application of a fix for the problem.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owa

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Owa
Vanity. RickK 07:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Google search returned only 5 hits. Markl222 08:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Not notable. Inter 11:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Rje 13:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. jni 16:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP not a web guide. Wyss 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, website advertisement. Megan1967 02:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owa


text:
Wikipedia:Nofollow (archive)

Please explain at the top of this page what "nofollow" means. This basic information is not explained anywhere in this page. Badagnani 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * "nofollow" is a relation tag (rel="nofollow") which can be added to any link and is technically a request from the website to search engines to ignore the link. That's the technical meaning. What having such a tag means about your site etc. is subjective and various opinions are given below. --BozMo talk 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * See also Meta Nofollow and Spam in blogs.

In response to widespread abuse of Google's PageRank formula using link spam, Google has implemented a special tag system which — for sites that automatically implement it — makes all links be counted nominally, rather than be ranked by excess propagation and proportion. This operates by changing the normal tags with a "nofollow" marker (  ). Google note

This new nofollow tag has some hidden features which are more good than bad. Webmasters, those who run a website based on content (bloggers arn't webmasters plain and simple, dont misuse webmaster), can profit from using this nofollow in strengthening their own page rank. According to notes released in the beta of page rank, (source) PR(A) = (1-d) + d(PR(t1)/C(t1) + ... + PR(tn)/C(tn)). In this algorithm, one way links help more than Reciprocal_link. using nofollow then creats a one way link, giving your page rank an extra boost.

The possible implementation of this feature on Wikipedia was discussed at Stopping Link Spam / Comment Spam and Reduce link spamming: Support Google's "nofollow" approach. During the latter discussion, it was revealed that automatic addition of "rel=nofollow" to all external links had already been added to the Mediawiki software and enabled in Wikimedia projects. Another discussion ensued at Nofollow. From this informal poll, it appears that the majority of users desire control over the use of the feature.

According to Brion in #mediawiki, the development IRC channel, the use of "rel=nofollow" in links can now be controlled by setting "$wgNoFollowLinks = false;" in a Wiki's settings. In light of this, it is proposed that the use of nofollow be disabled for the English Wikipedia.

 * As of March 6, 2005, use of rel="nofollow" is suspended for the time being on en.wikipedia.org. The vote is far from a consensus and discussion shows strong opposing positions with very wide differences in priorities which have not yet been resolved. More advanced heuristic use of rel="nofollow" is likely to come, when someone has the time to put in the effort to make it work. The blanket rel="nofollow" remains in effect on all other wikis for now.

 * As of May 22, 2006, following this discussion, rel="nofollow" is now enabled on non-article pages (i.e. pages outside the main namespace) on the English Wikipedia, but remains disabled for links in articles. Brion has said that it is his "intention to enable nofollow everywhere in the long run (though this might end up being in more limited form, for instance allowing some whitelisting or other verification process)."

 * As of January 20, 2007, Brion has re-enabled no-follow for the article namespace in the English Wikipedia, at the request of Jimbo Wales.

 * Doing this despite 61% votes against it seems like a totalitarian decision to me :( --Kyknos 10:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Position in favor of disabling nofollow
According to the developers themselves, the main reason for the use of the attribute is to prevent linkspam on low-traffic Wikis. Since this is the most active Wikimedia project, this is not a problem. Linkspam is, in most cases, quickly removed. Boosting the rankings of good resources is a positive thing, and encourages other sites to reciprocate in linking. A blacklist exists for persistent spam. Also, it is unlikely that, on an active Wiki such as this one, the use of the attribute will deter spammers; most will be unaware of it.

Some of the above statements are disputed
It is disputed that linkspam can be quickly removed, that anon IPs blocks are effective, or that spam blacklists are effective in the face of a sophisticated bot attack. See Wikipedia talk:Nofollow for details. And it is disputed that the author of a bot that shows this sophistication (switching to new IPs and new URLs with each attack) would be undeterred by "nofollow" if he had been aware that we had implemented it only a couple of weeks earlier.

Google certainly believes that "nofollow" will deter spam and recommends using it anywhere that users can add links by themselves: "securing every location where someone can add a link is the way to keep spammers at bay". Also Yahoo and MSN Search will be supporting "nofollow", so if it isn't standard yet it very soon will be.

Implementation of the vote
I have notified the developers on the MediaWiki mailing list as to result of the vote. It's now in their hands to take action regarding it. Given that I have encountered two different interpretations of the vote. One interpretation is that there was "no consensus", and therefore the status quo should rule ("keep" won the vote). The other is that that the majority should rule in this case. Personally I voted under the impression that since this was a brand new policy, implemented only one month ago in the software, and that it is a boolean flag in the code that affects nothing else (as to my understanding), that the majority should rule here. In other words, it was my understanding that it was to be a straight up or down vote on whether or not to keep the flag on or not. If anything, it should have required a consensus to turn on in the first place. As you can see, I voted "remove" but I certainly want policy in this case for a new feature to be decided on an up-or-down vote in any case, (or for the original status quo to be given precedence) no matter how I felt. I know that "keep" voters will probably see this different, but I have a hard time understanding how a policy that was implemented without user input, and which is supported by a minority of users, should remain as policy. It would be quite different if "nofollow" had been the status quo all along, and we were voting to remove it. This was not the case here. Like I said, I know others may not agree with me, but at this point it becomes a matter of how should policy be decided in this case. -- Decumanus 20:57, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

 * There was no consensus. We don't do what you call "straight up or down" voting on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * But the status quo of one month ago was having no attribute. It was added without user input, and now this action has been endorsed only by a small minority. If anything, I believe it should have taken a consensus to implement in the first place. -- Decumanus 21:21, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * I agree. Despite being an issue of contention, it was implemented without community consent or warning. Perhaps the person making the change didn't anticipate this disagreement, but until an effective compromise is deployed we should return to the real status quo, just as we would revert a controversial change to a policy page that lacks consent. If this is itself an issue of contention, perhaps we should vote on what the response to this vote will be. Deco 06:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * as this was the first vote on the issue, we can assume that most people would have voted the way they did if it had been a vote to introduce it. These results in that case would have been interpreted as a clear NO CONSENSUS to turn it on, So the wishes of the community pinke prevail and the feature turned off. Thryduulf 08:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Nofollow (archive)


text:
Murder–suicide

A murder–suicide is an act where an individual intentionally kills one or more people before killing themselves. The combination of murder and suicide can take various forms:

 * Suicide after or during murder inflicted on others
 * Murder that entails suicide, such as suicide bombing or the deliberate crash of a vehicle carrying the perpetrator and others
 * Murder of an officer or bystander during the act of suicide by cop
 * Suicide after murder to escape criminal punishment(s)
 * Suicide after murder as a form of self-punishment due to guilt
 * Suicide before or after murder by proxy
 * Murder linked with a person with suicidal ideation
 * Joint suicide in the form of killing the other with consent, and then killing oneself
 * Suicide by pilot

Suicide-lawful killing has three conceivable forms:
 * To kill one's assailant through proportionate self-defense killing oneself in the process
 * Lawful killing to prevent an individual from causing harm to others, in so doing killing oneself
 * Lawful killing indirectly resulting in or contributing to suicide

Many spree killings have ended in suicide, such as in several school shootings. Some cases of religiously motivated suicides may also involve murder. All categorization amounts to forming somewhat arbitrary distinctions where relating to intention in the case of psychosis, where the intention(s) is/are more likely than not to be irrational. Ascertaining the legal intention (mens rea) is inapplicable to cases properly categorized as insanity.

Some use the term murder–suicide to refer to homicide–suicide, which can include manslaughter and is therefore more encompassing.

According to an analysis of the London Times' reports of murder (1887-1990) by Danson and Soothill (1996), there is a much higher proportion of British male murder-suicides, in general, than female. Overwhelmingly the women committing murder-suicide tend to kill their children and then themselves. Men, on the other hand, tend to kill their spouses or partners.

Theories
According to psychiatrist Karl A. Menninger, murder and suicide are interchangeable acts – suicide sometimes forestalling murder, and vice versa. Following Freudian logic, severe repression of natural instincts due to early childhood abuse may lead the death instinct to emerge in a twisted form. The cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, whose theories on the human notion of death are strongly influenced by Freud, views the fear of death as a universal phenomenon, a fear repressed in the unconscious and of which people are largely unaware.

This fear can move individuals toward heroism, but also to scapegoating. Failed attempts to achieve heroism, according to this view, can lead to mental illness and/or antisocial behavior.

In a study specifically related to murder–suicide, Milton Rosenbaum (1990) discovered the murder–suicide perpetrators to be vastly different from perpetrators of homicide alone. Whereas murderer–suicides were found to be highly depressed and overwhelmingly men, other murderers were not generally depressed and more likely to include women in their ranks. In the U.S. the overwhelming number of cases are male-on-female. Around one-third of partner homicides end in the suicide of the perpetrator. From national and international data and interviews with family members of murder–suicide perpetrators, the following are the key predictors of murder–suicide: a history of substance abuse, the male partner some years older than the female partner, a break-up or pending break-up, a history of battering, and suicidal contemplation by the perpetrator.

Though there is no national tracking system for murder–suicides in the United States, medical studies into the phenomenon estimate between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths per year in the US, with the majority occurring between spouses or intimate partners and the vast majority of the perpetrators being male. Depression, marital or/and financial problems, and other problems are generally motivators.

Homicides which are later followed by suicide often make headline news; national statistics indicate 5% of all homicidal deaths are caused by murder–suicides. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control reports that an estimated 1 million adults reported attempting suicide in 2011, and there were over 38,000 completed suicides in the same period. The estimate of 624 murder–suicide events per year indicates that around 1.6% of suicides involve murder.

In 18th-century Denmark, people wishing to die by suicide would sometimes commit murder in order to receive the death penalty. They believed murder followed by repentance would allow them to end their life while avoiding damnation.

title: Murder–suicide


text:
Talk:Narayana Guru

Vandalism -Controversy as a defining speech
Hi, Sree narayana guru is the father of Kerala renaissense, a spiritual orator and a saint. However a court order regarding a land dispute is used as a definition of sree narayana guru. Considering the language I am pretty sure this is done by haters to degrade him. The statement goes like this : " There was a rumor about Narayana Guru that he is a god, but in reality, he is not a god. He is an Indian social reformer. The statue of Narayana Guru cannot be treated as a deity, the Kerala High court observed. {{Cite web |title=Narayana Guru Not An Avatar Of God: Kerala High Court . "

There are millions of God in India itself and there is no proof of them being god, god is not science but a belief. The high court ruled that he cannot be considered as an avatar of Vishnu as claimed by some ,since avatar is a Hindu concept and his statue cannot be considered as diety. This had nothing to do with anyone being god or not. As I said gos is a belief of a group of people. This sentence is twisted to define a great person that too as a defining paragraph. I have moved this to a subsection. please resist such hate spewing attempts Wannabesomething123 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Constant Revision
I have noticed that a certain paragraph regarding this person being worshiped as or seen as equal to god or not, and an indian state high court order regarding the same is being pulled into the main section.

The reason why it do not fit there , 1) The definition of god changes from religion to region, every religion tends to devalidate others god being god ,doesnt mean that they cannot worship whatever they want . Noone can impose anyones religious ideology on others. In south asia aninals to naturak resources are considered as god. Also the sources are from indian news portals , it says that he cannot be considered as a hindu avatar or a hindu diety. It have nothing to do with the concept of god outside hindu concept nor it devalidates it.also these rulings have limited validity in a global perspective . Hence you cannot use it to prove anyone being god or not or the existence of god. Regarding the court ruling it seems well acknowledged in the section . 'In popular Media '. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Name change 'Narayana Guru' to 'Sree Narayana Guru'
The name is Sree Narayana guru and not Narayana guru. A just a google results will reveal this. These are references from leading news articles from India on the name Sree Narayana guru. Infact the organizatiosn like SNDP and other organziations formed under his name has this 'sree'.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Requesting to change the name of the article. Afv12e (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Article missing many reformations done by Sree Narayan Guru
The article is missing many reformations done by sree narayan guru. Most of that is incidents or events rather than a movement. Most of the references are in Malayalam language and is from Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam sites. Just wondering those sources can be taken here. If else someone please add sources and mile stones here, so that we can discuss and add those. Afv12e (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Narayana Guru


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isobel von Schonenberg

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was redirect to Hopscotch (movie). – ABCD 01:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isobel von Schonenberg
This page is junk. ;Bear 08:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

 * delete. I can't even remember what movie this is from. Blair P. Houghton 00:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Hopscotch (movie) and redirect there. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 01:50, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hopscotch (movie). That article already mentions Isobel, so a merge would not help. Dave the Red (talk) 04:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hopscotch (movie). Megan1967 06:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hopscotch (movie). Gorrister 18:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested. Vlad M V  ٭ talk 14:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
College of the Canyons

College of the Canyons (COC) is a public community college in Santa Clarita, California. It comprises the Santa Clarita Community College District. The college is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and has campus locations in Valencia and Canyon Country.

History
Local voters approved the formation of the college in 1967. It officially opened in 1969, operating in temporary quarters on the campus of William S. Hart High School in Newhall. In 1970, the college purchased a permanent campus site along the east side of Interstate 5, south of Valencia Boulevard and north of McBean Parkway. The college relocated to a collection of modular buildings on the site in 1970 as permanent facilities were being built.

Campus
The college is located on 153.4 acre of rolling, tree-dotted hills in the neighborhood of Valencia in the city of Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County, California.

In 2007, the college opened its Canyon Country campus on a 70 acre site located at 17200 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, CA 91351. The campus had an enrollment of 3,845 in the fall of 2009. Its first permanent building, the Applied Technology Education Center, was scheduled to open in 2011 to provide education and training in a variety of high-demand "green" technology fields. The campus is composed primarily of modular buildings that are situated to accommodate planned permanent buildings as they are built. The campus has an outdoor venue, the Carl A. Rasmussen Amphitheater.

In 2021, the college opened a 55,000 square foot science and laboratory facility at the Canyon Country campus. The facility is called the Don Takeda Science Center after a retired biology professor.

Academics
With 191 full-time faculty members (as of fall 2009), the college offers Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees in 69 academic programs, as well as credentials in 82 certificate programs. Academy of the Canyons, a middle college high school operated by the William S. Hart Union High School District, opened on the College of the Canyons campus in 2002 allowing promising high school students to attend high school and college concurrently. The college also oversees the University Center, a collection of public and private universities that offer advanced degree programs on the college's campus, eliminating the need for residents to commute long distances to earn their degrees.

Also operating at the college are the Center for Applied Competitive Technologies, the Employee Training Institute, the Small Business Development Center and the i3 Advanced Technology Center.

Student life
Since 1994, the COC Speech Team has been recognized nationally at six consecutive Phi Rho Pi National Tournaments for all three major areas of speech competition. Most recently, the team left the 2013 Phi Rho Pi National Tournament with five medals including, one gold, one silver and three bronze medals.

Athletics
The college athletics teams are nicknamed the Cougars and competes as a member of the California Community College Athletic Association (CCCAA) in the Western State Conference (WSC) for all sports except football, which competes in Southern California Football Association (SCFA). The college currently fields eight men's and nine women's varsity teams; including baseball, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's cross country, football, men's and women's golf, men's and women's soccer, softball, men's and women's swimming, women's tennis, men's and women's track and field, and women's volleyball.

The men's golf team has won nine state championships 1991 and 8 since 2000 (2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2013, 2015,2017 and 2019) women's golf won the state championship in fall of 2001,2007 and back to back championships in 2018 and 2019. This is the third time that the women's and men's team have won back to back state championships in the same academic year (Fall 2001, Spring 2002, Fall 2007, Spring 2008 and in Fall 2018 and Spring 2019) The men's football team won the national championship in 2004. The men's ice hockey club won the ACHA Division III National Title in 2011. The men's baseball team has also won three state championships 1981, 1983 and 1986.

As of 2017, COC has won 179 conference titles, 31 state titles, and 1 national title. Of the conference titles, baseball holds 23, men's basketball holds 8, women's basketball holds 15, men's cross country holds 4, football holds 11, men's golf holds 23, women's golf holds 8, women's soccer holds 10, softball holds 14, men's swim holds 8 individual titles, women's swim holds 1 individual title, women's dive holds 2, men's track and field holds 2 team titles and 27 individual titles, women's track and field holds 1 team title and 17 individual titles, and women's volleyball holds 5. The 31 state titles are held by 7 teams: baseball (3), men's track and field (7), women's track and field (2), men's golf (10), woman's golf (4), football (1), and men's cross country (4). The one national championship was won by COC football in 2004.

Filming location

 * The Incredible Hulk – location used for the Culver Institute Laboratory
 * The Amazing Race: All-Stars (aired February 23, 2014 on CBS) – the football field was used for the opening segment where the UCLA's "The Solid Gold Sound" marching band performed the show's theme song
 * Hamburger: The Motion Picture (1986) - used as Busterburger University
 * The Girl Next Door (2004) – used as the site of the main characters' high school
 * Bickford Shmeckler's Cool Ideas (2006) – used as the site of the college campus where many scenes take place
 * NCIS – as "Waverly University"
 * The Newsroom – used as the site of Will's speech on America's recent decline
 * Weeds – used as the site of Doug's office, Shane's school, and the local community college
 * The Office Season 6, Episode 25: "The Chump" - Used for setting of a high school baseball game.

Notable alumni

 * Marquise Brown, American football player, Arizona Cardinals
 * Steven Dehler, model, actor and dancer
 * Matt Moore, American football player, Oregon State, Miami Dolphins, Carolina Panthers
 * Ivan Dorschner, Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010 5th Big Placer, model and actor
 * Adam Kovic, internet personality (Machinima, Funhaus)
 * Kevin McHale, (Artie Adams from Glee), Actor, singer, dancer, voice actor
 * Aaron Mitchell, former American football player, Dallas Cowboys
 * Domata Peko, former American football player, Cincinnati Bengals and Denver Broncos
 * Jason Pierre-Paul, American football player, New York Giants
 * Isaac Sopoaga, former American football player, San Francisco 49ers (2004–2012)
 * Brian Vranesh, professional golfer who has played on the PGA Tour and Web.com Tour
 * Christy Smith, former California State Assembly member (38th district)
 * Suzette Martinez Valladares, Former California State Assembly member (38th district) 2020-2022

title: College of the Canyons


text:
John M. Palmer

John McAuley Palmer (September 13, 1817 – September 25, 1900) was an American politician. He was an Illinois resident, an American Civil War general who fought for the Union, the 15th governor of Illinois, and presidential candidate of the National Democratic Party in the 1896 election on a platform to defend the gold standard, free trade, and limited government.

Palmer switched political parties throughout his life, starting out a Democrat. He became in turn an anti-Nebraska Democrat (an anti-slavery opponent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act), a Republican, a Liberal Republican, returned to being a Democrat, then ended as a Bourbon Democrat. He said, "I had my own views. I was not a slave of any party," and added, "I thought for myself and [have] spoken my own words on all occasions."

Early life and career
Born at Eagle Creek in Scott County, Kentucky, Palmer's family in 1831 moved to Alton, Illinois. They were very poor, but he later worked his way through college. In 1839, he was admitted to the bar in that state. Palmer married Malinda Ann Neely in 1842 and had ten children with her. His early careers included being a lawyer, school teacher, coopering, and selling clocks.

Palmer was a member of the state constitutional convention of 1848. Between 1852 and 1855, he was a Democratic member of the Illinois Senate, but joined the Republican party upon its organization and became one of its leaders in Illinois.

He presided over the 1856 Illinois Republican Convention in Bloomington that founded the party in his home state. In 1859 he was the Republican candidate in a special election to a vacancy in the 36th Congress caused by the death of Thomas L. Harris, but he was defeated by John A. McClernand. He later became a Republican presidential elector in 1860, and was one of the leading people who got his friend Abraham Lincoln nominated for the presidency at the national convention in Chicago.

In 1861, he was appointed by Lincoln to be a delegate to the peace convention in Washington. It failed when no compromise could be reached.

Civil War
During the American Civil War, Palmer served in the Union army, rising from the rank of colonel to that of major general in the volunteer service. He enlisted in 1861 and was commissioned Colonel of the 14th Illinois Infantry, serving under his friend John C. Fremont in an expedition to Springfield, Missouri, to put down the rebellion in that state. On December 20, 1861, he was promoted to brigadier general and assigned command of a brigade under John Pope.

Palmer took part in the capture of New Madrid and Island No. 10, commanding a division in the latter campaign. Taken ill in the field, he returned home to recuperate and raised a new regiment, the 122nd Illinois Infantry. Taking the field again in September, he was assigned by William S. Rosecrans to command the first division of the Army of the Mississippi in Alabama and Tennessee. On November 29, 1862, he was promoted to major general of volunteers, and was conspicuous in the Battle of Stones River, where his division held an important position within the Union lines.

Palmer effectively led his troops during the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863. He commanded the XIV Corps of the Army of the Cumberland during the Chattanooga Campaign (November 23–November 25, 1863), and served under George Henry Thomas in the Atlanta Campaign. Palmer's corps was a part of William T. Sherman's movement at the Railroads at East Point, in early August 1864. His corps was placed under the command of Major General John M. Schofield and ordered to cross North Utoy Creek. He questioned his orders, as he outranked Schofield as a Major General. A delay ensued while Sherman researched the question of rank and he ruled in favor of the 33-year-old, Schofield, commander of the Army of Ohio. After the main assault by the XIV and XXIII Corps in which one of his Soldiers, PVT Samual Grimshaw received the Medal of Honor, Palmer resigned in protest on the evening of August 6, 1864 and Brigadier General Johnson assumed command of the XIV Corps. Later Major General Jefferson C. Davis assumed command of the Corps. This is the only example of a resignation in the middle of an operation during the history of the United States. He returned home and awaited orders from the War Department. In early 1865, he was reassigned to command all Federal forces in Kentucky, helping to assert Federal control over the state for the next three years. As Kentucky's military governor, Palmer established such control by two methods: waging a hard war against guerrillas and achieving the end of slavery in a state not bound by the Emancipation Proclamation. As late as May 1865, Palmer made clear his position on hard war after Kentucky irregulars still in the field had threatened him about summary punishment for captured partisans—"if you treat them as prisoners of war we will respect the same towards your soldiers if not we never can." Palmer ordered that guerrillas would not be allowed to surrender. "[N]o commission, real or forged, shall save [them]," he ordered, "all will be driven out or punished accordingly ... such men [will] be exterminated." Palmer, one of the organizers of the Republican Party in Illinois, was an avowed abolitionist who had received his assignment from his friend the president specifically to implement military policies to end slavery in the state. (When Lincoln offered the assignment in Kentucky to Palmer, then without a command, the general claimed the president directed him firmly: "Go to Kentucky, keep your temper, do as you please, and I will sustain you.") Palmer in fact needed little convincing, believing "that all that was left of slavery [in Kentucky] was its mischiefs" and, as he related, he was "determined to 'drive the last nail in the coffin' of the 'institution' even if it cost me the command of the department." (Indeed, to his wife he opined in 1865 that "if [I] had been asked five or ten years ago what honor I would ask as the highest which could be confer[r]ed upon me I would have said let me destroy slavery in Kentucky.") On March 20, at one of Louisville's Methodist churches, he announced as much.

In the next few months, with an assiduousness that belied the initial impression he gave the legislature that he intended to placate the state's loyal white populace, Palmer carried out Lincoln's directive. Not only did he actively enlist all able-bodied black men at an unprecedented rate — often with the assistance of all-black recruiting squads, and despite the legislature's strident objection to the continued presence of black troops in the state — he sustained martial law in the state in order to override the state's civil courts and governments because of their obvious unwillingness to assume "their clear and positive duty to protect the people from forcible wrongs, whether inflicted under the forms of law or otherwise." He legitimated slave marriages to protect the wives and children of enlisted men (in part a response to the Camp Nelson embarrassment), established refugee camps, fended off efforts by various municipal governments to expel fugitive slaves and free blacks alike and deny them the opportunity to find employment, released slaves from jails and workhouses, ordered that no bondman should be forced into service as substitutes, and issued tens of thousands of travel passes enabling African Americans to move freely within and without the state in search of employment. Called by African Americans "free passes" (and by white Kentuckians "Palmer passes") they were both agent and symbol of the delayed yet inevitable death of slavery in the state. At an African American Fourth of July celebration at Louisville's camp—one that followed a parade through the city streets, including some fifteen hundred armed black and white soldiers and band—Palmer, arriving in a gilded circus chariot, told an estimated twenty thousand attendees, most of whom he had already been assured believed the general was there to declare them free (and who he claimed later he set out to inform otherwise), "My countrymen, you are free, and while I command in this department the military forces of the United States will defend your right to freedom." That one of its circuit courts was soon to strike down Congress's act of March 3, 1865, liberating black soldiers' dependents — some 72,045 individuals, or by one USCT officer's estimate, "[t]wo and one half persons freed, for each Colored Soldier enlisted in the State of Kentucky" and two-thirds of the state's slaves—only fueled the general's intent to cure the state's white residents of "Negrophobia in its worst form." "Slavery is dead in Kentucky," he said to his wife in October 1865, "and my Mission is accomplished." He was soon met with an indictment by Louisville's grand jury for aiding fugitive slaves and a wave of lawsuits from dispossessed Kentucky slaveholders.

Postbellum career
In 1866, he resigned from the army and two years later was elected Governor of Illinois as a candidate of the Republican Party. He succeeded fellow Republican, General Richard James Oglesby. As Governor, Palmer signed the 1872 Public Library Act, establishing tax-funded public libraries in Illinois. He also advocated for establishing reform schools for youthful offenders, deeming capital punishment "a vestige of barbarism" and believing that contact with repeat criminals at prisons would worsen their habits. Furthermore, Palmer urged ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment and supported the adoption of the 1870 Illinois State Constitution.

In the aftermath of the 1871 Chicago Fire, Palmer called for the state legislature to hold a special session on October 13, making roughly $3,000,000 available for relief. When legislators questioned the Constitutionality of providing such funds, Palmer issued a message highlighting the General Assembly's promise in an 1865 act to refund money spent by Chicago in constructing the Illinois and Michigan Canal. With interest, the expenditures amounted to $2,955,340, which would be the amount the state legislature ultimately appropriated for relief.

Amid the unrest brought on by the disaster, General Philip Sheridan visited Chicago. Without informing Palmer, the City's Mayor, Roswell Mason, subsequently issued a proclamation on October 11 that left Sheridan in charge of maintaining order there. Palmer, who did not learn of this action until October 17, reacted negatively to Mason's decision. Believing that states should "re-assume their rightful powers" after the Civil War, Palmer argued that Mason could not request federal intervention without the Governor's consent and held that state troops had handled the situation well. As such, he told Mason to inform Sheridan that federal troop presence was no longer necessary, but the Mayor responded by saying he would not dismiss the proclamation until October 23.

Once federal troops left Chicago, a local relief agency requested that Sheridan station four more companies in the City. Then-Commanding General of the Army William T. Sherman obliged, and Palmer appealed the decision to then-President Ulysses Grant, who defended the action on practical grounds. This incident, alongside Palmer's dislike of high protective tariffs during peacetime and his general inclination toward state sovereignty, influenced the Governor's decision to join the Liberal Republican movement in 1872.

He was succeeded in turn by Oglesby in 1873. In the presidential election of 1872, Governor Palmer received three electoral votes for vice president by electors who had voted for the Liberal Republican Party's vice presidential candidate B. Gratz Brown for president after the death of Horace Greeley. In the 1891 United States Senate election, he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat and served one term.

Mrs. Palmer Weber, the daughter of Senator Palmer, spent considerable time in Washington City during her father's senatorial term, where her beauty, grace and geniality made her very popular.

1892 presidential possibility
In 1892, Palmer was seriously considered as a candidate for the presidency. At first, Palmer was taken up as a "refuge" candidate. Some Chicago Democrats, who were not prepared to accept Cleveland, Hill, or Gorman, were to support Palmer until they could go to the winner. This in itself was a point gained by Palmer and he proceeded to utilize it at once.

In early February 1892, Palmer had a conference with Patrick A. Collins, a former Democratic Massachusetts Congressman. At this conference, the two Democrats concluded a treaty. The purpose of the treaty was to make Palmer the Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Governor William Russell, Collins' political ally and personal friend, the vice presidential candidate. It was argued by Collins that Palmer, being a Western senator of Kentucky stock, would be acceptable to the Southern Democrats. The objection as to Palmer's age would be met by pointing out that Russell, the youngest of governors, would become president in the event of his death. Russell's nomination would command the support of New England Democrats.

Before the 1892 Democratic National Convention, Cook County Democrats held a convention and endorsed Senator Palmer for president. In the end, Palmer stood faithful to former president Grover Cleveland and worked to have him nominated. Even though he supported Cleveland, many Illinois Democrats still supported him for president. Palmer was such a serious candidate that he had to go to the Democratic Convention in Chicago to discourage his own nomination.

But, under exceptional circumstances, he did run for president in 1896, rather than seeking reelection to the Senate.

Defending the gold standard
Palmer was the presidential candidate for the National Democratic Party in the 1896 election. The National Democratic Party was a conservative splinter group opposed to the free-silver platform of the regular Democratic Party and its nominee, William Jennings Bryan. His running mate on this "Gold Democratic" ticket was Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr., a former Confederate general and governor of Kentucky. The National Democratic Party ticket received the coveted endorsement of the New York Times.

The party arose out of a split in the Democratic Party due to the economic depression that occurred under Democratic president Grover Cleveland. At the 1896 presidential convention, one of Palmer's main Illinois rivals was Governor John Peter Altgeld, who succeeded in getting his own candidate, former Illinoisan William Jennings Bryan, nominated for the presidency. The currency issue dominated the campaign, blurring party lines. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, created their own political party and nominated Palmer as their own candidate.

Palmer opposed free silver, which was a plan to place the value of silver to gold at a 16-to-1 ratio, and then to tie the U.S. dollar to that value. Palmer noted that this plan ran contrary to the world market value of silver and gold, which was about 32 to 1. But, with Altgeld and Bryan in control of the Democratic convention, free silver won the day. Palmer believed it would have ruined the American economy, and he ran for president for a third party that was a breakaway group of Democrats. An article in the libertarian The Independent Review argues that in waging this quixotic campaign, he was a key figure in the "last stand" of classical liberalism as a political movement in the 19th century.

Palmer and the other founders were disenchanted Democrats who viewed the party as a means to preserve the small-government ideals of Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland, which they believed had been betrayed by Bryan. In its first official statement, the executive committee of the party declared, the Democrats had believed "in the ability of every individual, unassisted, if unfettered by law, to achieve his own happiness" and had upheld his "right and opportunity peaceably to pursue whatever course of conduct he would, provided such conduct deprived no other individual of the equal enjoyment of the same right and opportunity. [They] stood for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of trade, and freedom of contract, all of which are implied by the century-old battle-cry of the Democratic party, 'Individual Liberty'" The party criticized both the inflationist policies of the Democrats and the protectionism of the Republicans.

Palmer's campaign platform was popular and he could have been a major factor in the election had he been younger, but few voters were willing to support a 79-year-old candidate. Although he could have made up for this with a youthful running mate, he instead chose 73-year-old Simon Bolivar Buckner, in part because it was thought that the idea of two former generals, one Union and one Confederate, teamed up would emphasize national unity and ease the still-lingering resentment in the South from the Civil War. The two displayed a good amount of energy for their age and embarked on a busy campaign schedule, but most supporters of the ideals of the National Democratic Party probably voted for McKinley because of his support of the gold standard. Palmer and Buckner received just over 1% of the vote.

Post-Presidential Run
Following the conclusion of his Senate term, Palmer returned to Springfield, Illinois, resuming his law practice and writing his memoirs, The Story of an Earnest Life, with the assistance of his wife.

In 1897, Palmer, alongside former Republican State Senator John J. Brenholt, lent his legal services to Scott Bibb, Harry B. Coats, and Lee Jackson, who sought to challenge the legality of school segregation in Alton, Illinois. Although he died before the case's conclusion, Palmer was optimistic about its chances for success, with the plaintiffs reaching a favorable verdict in 1908. However, the refusal from Alton officials to implement the Court's orders prevented the plaintiff's ultimate success.

Palmer died of a heart attack in Springfield, Illinois, on September 25, 1900, and was interred in the City Cemetery in Carlinville, Illinois.

John M. Palmer Elementary School, located at 5051 North Kenneth Avenue on the northwest side of Chicago was named in his honor.

title: John M. Palmer


text:
Fred Clark

Frederick Leonard Clark (March 19, 1914 – December 5, 1968) was an American film and television character actor, often cast in authoritative roles.

Early years
Born in Lincoln, California, Clark was the son of Fred Clark Sr. He attended Stanford University with plans to become a doctor, but participation in a college production of Yellow Jack diverted his attention to acting. He changed his major to drama and later received a scholarship to the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. While there, he was elected his class's most promising actor.

Career
Clark made his film debut in 1947 in The Unsuspected. His 20-year film career included nearly seventy films and numerous television appearances. As a supporting player, with his gruff voice, intimidating build, bald head and small moustache beneath an often scowling visage, he was often cast as a testy film producer, crime boss, landlord, employer, doctor, or general. In 1942 during World War II Clark joined the United States Navy and served as an aviator. He later transferred to the United States Army and served with the Third Army in Europe until the end of the war.

Among his films were Ride the Pink Horse (1947), Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid (1948), Flamingo Road (1949), White Heat (1949), Sunset Boulevard (1950), A Place in the Sun (1951), How to Marry a Millionaire (1953), The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell (1955), How to Be Very, Very Popular (1955), Daddy Long Legs (1955), Auntie Mame (1958), and Visit to a Small Planet (1960).

Although he continued making films during the 1960s (most notably a large role in Hammer Film Productions' The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb in 1964 and John Goldfarb, Please Come Home in 1965) he was more often seen on television, as a regular on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show as neighbor Harry Morton (until 1953) and guest roles on The Twilight Zone, The Beverly Hillbillies, Going My Way, The Addams Family, and I Dream of Jeannie. In 1962, he and Bea Benaderet, another Burns and Allen veteran, played Mr. and Mrs. Springer in the episode "Continental Dinner," the series finale of the CBS sitcom Pete and Gladys, starring Harry Morgan and Cara Williams. Clark had a regular but short-lived role in the 1966 ABC sitcom The Double Life of Henry Phyfe as the "Central Intelligence Service" boss of a hapless conscripted spy played by comedian Red Buttons.

Clark's Broadway credits included Absence of a Cello (1964), Viva Madison Avenue! (1960), Romanoff and Juliet (1957), Ringside Seat (1938), What a Life (1938), and Schoolhouse on the Lot (1938).

Personal life
Clark was married to actress Benay Venuta from 1952–1962, then model Gloria Glaser from 1966 until his death from liver disease in Santa Monica, California. Clark has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his work in television, at 1711 Vine Street.

Complete filmography

 * The Unsuspected (1947) - Richard Donovan
 * Ride the Pink Horse (1947) - Frank Hugo
 * Fury at Furnace Creek (1948) - Bird
 * Hazard (1948) - Lonnie Burns
 * Two Guys from Texas (1948) - Dr. Straeger
 * Cry of the City (1948) - Lt Collins
 * Alias Nick Beal (1949) - Frankie Faulkner
 * The Younger Brothers (1949) - Daniel Ryckman
 * Flamingo Road (1949) - Doc Waterson
 * White Heat (1949) - The Trader, aka Winston
 * So You Want to Get Rich Quick (1949, Short) - Fastidious Ferguson (uncredited)
 * So You Want to Be an Actor (1949, Short) - Mr. Frisbee (uncredited)
 * The Lady Takes a Sailor (1949) - Victor Santell (uncredited)
 * The Amazing Mr. Malone (1950, TV Movie)
 * Return of the Frontiersman (1950) - Ryan
 * The Eagle and the Hawk (1950) - Basil Danzeeger
 * Sunset Boulevard (1950) - Sheldrake
 * The Jackpot (1950) - Mr. Andrew J. Woodruff
 * Mrs. O'Malley and Mr. Malone (1950) - Tim Marino
 * The Lemon Drop Kid (1951) - Moose Moran
 * A Place in the Sun (1951) - Bellows
 * Hollywood Story (1951) - Sam Collyer
 * Meet Me After the Show (1951) - Timothy 'Tim' Wayne
 * Three for Bedroom "C" (1952) - Johnny Pizer
 * Dreamboat (1952) - Sam Levitt
 * The Stars Are Singing (1953) - McDougall
 * The Caddy (1953) - Mr. Baxter / Old Skinhead
 * Here Come the Girls (1953) - Harry Fraser
 * How to Marry a Millionaire (1953) - Waldo Brewster
 * Living It Up (1954) - Oliver Stone
 * Abbott and Costello Meet the Keystone Kops (1955) - Joseph Gorman, aka Sergei Toumanoff
 * Daddy Long Legs (1955) - Griggs
 * How to Be Very, Very Popular (1955) - B.J. Marshall
 * The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell (1955) - Col. Moreland
 * Miracle in the Rain (1956) - Steven Jalonik
 * The Birds and the Bees (1956) - Horace Hamilton
 * The Solid Gold Cadillac (1956) - Clifford Snell
 * Back from Eternity (1956) - Crimp
 * Joe Butterfly (1957) - Col. E.E. Fuller
 * The Fuzzy Pink Nightgown (1957) - Police Sergeant McBride
 * Don't Go Near the Water (1957) - Lt. Cmdr. Clinton T. Nash
 * Mardi Gras (1958) - Al Curtis
 * Auntie Mame (1958) - Dwight Babcock
 * The Mating Game (1959) - Oliver Kelsey
 * It Started with a Kiss (1959) - Maj. Gen. Tim O'Connell
 * Visit to a Small Planet (1960) - Maj. Roger Putnam Spelding
 * Bells Are Ringing (1960) - Larry Hastings
 * The Passionate Thief (1960) - L'americano
 * La moglie di mio marito (1961) - Mr. Bietti
 * A porte chiuse (1961) - Xatis, il procuratore generale
 * My Darling Judge (1961, TV Movie)
 * Boys' Night Out (1962) - Mr. Bohannon
 * Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man (1962) - Mr. Turner
 * Zotz! (1962) - Gen. Bullivar
 * Young Girls of Good Families (1963) - Mr. Whitehall
 * Move Over, Darling (1963) - Mr. Codd (Hotel Manager)
 * The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) - Alexander King
 * John Goldfarb, Please Come Home! (1965) - Heinous Overreach
 * Sergeant Deadhead (1965) - General Rufus Fogg
 * When the Boys Meet the Girls (1965) - Bill Dennis
 * Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine (1965) - D.J. Pevney
 * Due Marines e un Generale (1965) - Gen. Zacharias
 * Eve (1968) - Lucky Burke
 * Skidoo (1968) - A Tower Guard (released posthumously)
 * The Horse in the Gray Flannel Suit (1968) - Tom Dugan
 * I Sailed to Tahiti with an All Girl Crew (1969) - "Generous" Josh (released posthumously)
 * Eddie (1971, TV Movie) - Chief Pike (final film role; released posthumously)

title: Fred Clark


text:
User talk:Afq

Sentence-1
The critical temperature of a material is the temperature above which unique liquid and gas phases do not exist.

Sentence-2
As the critical temperature is approached, the properties of the gas and liquid phases become the same.

Sentence-3
Above the critical temperature, there is only one phase.

Are not the sentence-1 & 3 contradicting?

title: User talk:Afq


text: User talk:67.119.178.201

title: User talk:67.119.178.201