text:
Template talk:Creationism

no, schroeder. geocentrism is not a mode of creationism -- geocentrism was proposed by Ptolemy, a greek and a pagan. it had its day when the christians accepted greek philosophy as truth (similar to recent attempts to incorporate evolution) but is NOT a creationist idea, because the position of the earth in the universe has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was created or not. it is accepted by absolutely NONE of the creationist organizations referenced in the creationism articles. it has no place here except in your continued efforts to force your ignorance on others by ascribing everything stupid to creationists. by the way, why aren't you editing the creation biology page you were so concerned about protecting? do you really think we don't see through your games? Ungtss 05:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism is a form of creationism
First, modern geocentrism is not Ptolemaic geocentrism. They believe that there is biblical and scientific evidence to support the view that the Earth is the center of the universe. Yes, there are those who reject modern geocentrism within the creationist movement. However, these people are clearly creationist and just because you don't believe they aren't doesn't make them not.

The groups associated with modern geocentrism including Biblical Astronomy and Catholic Apologetics International both claim impeccible creationist credentials (you can read their statements of faith) and they definitely deserve to be included.

As to your comment that "the position of the earth in the universe has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was created or not," this is heartily rejected by geocentrists. They believe that the Bible has the evidence that the Earth was created at the center. This is similar to inclusion of flood geology since the existence of a Global flood has nothing to do with whether the Earth was created or not. In actuality, it has more claim to being creationist than flood geology because it is talking about a framework for understanding the context of the creation event.

You can read an interesting letter arguing that this is creationism here:

Therefore, the edit stands. Joshuaschroeder 23:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * wrongo, bongo. you never get tired of being completely and utterly wrong, do you?  your argument that it's creationism because their beliefs stem from the bible falls flat -- many ideas stem from a reading of the bible, but have absolutely nothing to do with creationism.  would you say that "The Trinity" is Creationism?  Or perhaps "The 10 Commandments" are creationism?  creationism by definition a view of HOW THE UNIVERSE, EARTH, and LIFE originated.  that has absolutely NOTHING to do with where the earth is in the universe.  the edit is BULLSHIT, schroeder.  why don't you go kick a puppy or something?  Ungtss 00:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * creationism by definition a view of HOW THE UNIVERSE...originated -- This is explicitly talked about in the Modern geocentrism article. I'm not seeing what your point is. Joshuaschroeder 00:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * you never do. you just revert and manipulate the system to support your own ignorance, and for that, you're a discredit to your profession.
 * 1) by DEFINITION, creationism is about CREATION -- the mode and mechanism by which things came to be by the act of a creator. geocentrism has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the earth come to be, but only where the earth IS.
 * Modern geocentrism is about the creation of the Earth at the center of the universe. Read the linked letter above. It is explicitly supported because it is about how the Earth came to be at the center of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * NO, it is NOT. it is about the earth BEING at the center of the universe.  to say that a letter by a geocentrist arguing that geocentrism is the only theologically correct mode of creationism means it's creationism is like saying that a creationist arguing that creation is the only theologically correct mode of SCIENCE makes it SCIENCE.  Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That it is a "creationist belief" is not up for debate here. I don't see how you are arguing differently. It's not a belief based on UFOs, it's not a belief based on solipsism, it is a belief based on creationism, and that's why I included it in the template. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * listen, genius. EVERYTHING is up for debate.  just because you can't understand thoughts other than your own does not authorize you to bully your way to your pov on this page.  it is a belief based on the BIBLE, but NOT a belief based on creationism, because one need not be a geocentrist to be a creationist, and need not be a creationist to be a geocentrist.  since when is yours the only opinion of any consequence on this WIKIPEDIA, a COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, and how long is it going to take before you recognize that yours is only one opinion of SEVERAL, and you have to COMPROMISE with those who DISAGREE with you in this forum?  if you'd like to brainwash your own family and friends, or right your own bullshit books, that's fine.  but there's no room for it on wikipedia.  none.  wikipedia is NPOV, and that requires NEGOTIATION and COMPROMISE.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is based on creationism as defined on the creationism page. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no it's not. creationism is the idea that God CREATED the Earth -- geocentrism is an idea about where the earth is in the universe.  where on the creationism page does it provide a definition including geocentrism?  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism is an effort to understand how the Earth and the universe came to be. Specifically, modern geocentrists argue that it had to come to be as a geocentric universe. It is a matter of keeping God involved in nature for them. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * once again, that is strictly incorrect. you are a creationist AND a modern geocentrist, because being a modern geocentrist does NOT necessarily mean you're a creationist -- those are two separate issues, not one.  i find it interesting that you're so concerned about making sure geocentrists are represented here.  where are the geocentrists to fight for themselves?  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my contention that there are no modern geocentrists who would agree with you assessment of the strict separation of the two concepts. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 2) a geocentrist could be a young earth creationist, an old-earth creationis, a day-age creationist, or even an evolutionary creationist, because the POSITION OF THE EARTH IS IRRELEVENT TO THE MODE BY WHICH IT WAS CREATED.
 * Please find a Modern geocentrist who is not a creationist. The position of the Earth is not irrelevent to the mode by which it was created according to modern geocentrists. That's their take on creationism. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * please find me a secular humanist who is not an evolutionist. you're conflating two disparate and unrelated concepts to suit your own ends.  Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If there was an "evolution" template I'm sure "secular humanism" would be a topic included in it. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ha:). that's hilarious:).  you really think secular humanism is relevent to evolution?  should christianity be on there too, because many christians believe in evolution?  what about "republican party," because many republicans are evolutionists?  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The secular humanism, even admitted to (if described poorly by) Phil Johnson as being derived from evolution isn't relevent to evolution? Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevent to evolution, because you can be a theistic evolutionist or an atheist evolutionist -- there is no reference to atheism on the page, because that's a wholly different and largely unrelated idea. evolution is a scientific theory -- secular humanism is a religion.  many theists also accept evolution.  there's no link between the ideas.  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * there are certainly creationists that reject modern geocentrism just as there are creationists that reject the argument that evolution is wrong because it's "only a theory and not a fact." (c.f. AiG). If you think that there is a problem with including alternative views of creationism by people who are avowed creationists, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you're simply evading my argument repeatedly, because you know there's no response. look at all the other forms of creationism -- do ANY of them make a claim as to the shape of the universe?  no!  they ALL make claims as to the AGE of the Earth and universe, and the MEANS by which God brought it into existence.  Shall we have another link called "Modern astronomy" to represent the 98% of creationists that REJECT geocentrism?  this is sheer non-sequitur, your specialty i'm afraid.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * White hole cosmology makes a claim to the shape of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 3) you argued that it is creationism because the belief is based on the bible. that's non-sequitur.  things aren't creationism simply by virtue of coming out of the bible.  many things, like the story of jesus, come out of the bible.  that does NOT make them creationism.
 * It is creationism because, as creationism is described, "Creationism is generally the belief that the universe was created by a deity, or alternatively by one or more powerful and intelligent beings." This is a fundamental tenet of Modern geocentrism (not geocentrism in general, but modern geocentrism). Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * NO, geocentrism is about where the earth IS, not about its creation, and geocentrists select the different versions of creationism based on their beliefs about creation because GEOCENTRISM says NOTHING of CREATION. Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism talks a lot about how creation had to have occurred. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it does not. absolutely not.  it talks about the nature of the universe, which can take place in a creationistic or atomistic framework.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article that is linked?Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, that's written by a geocentrist trying to prove his relevence. find me a "mainstream creationist" who thinks they are relevent.  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Proving one's relevence" is what it's all about, isn't it? Modern geocentrism is an article because there are people that believe in it. It is a POV, and it is an explicitly creationist one according to those that believe in it. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * such a vast capacity for hypocracy. modern geocentrism is CERTAINLY less "notable" than creation geology -- it's certainly more pseudoscientific -- but you put creation geology up for VfD, but will fight to the DEATH to make sure modern geocentrism is on the template.  how can you look at yourself in the mirror?  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * All rhetoric aside, if you want to put modern geocentrism up for VfD, be my guest. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 4) absolutely NONE of the creationist organizations cited and referenced on the creationist pages are geocentrist. geocentrism has its OWN movements, which push their OWN agenda.
 * The two organizations cited call themselves creationist. You can dispute their claim to creationism on the modern geocentrist page. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * once again, just because an atheist calls himself an evolutionist doesn't mean that atheism is a mode of evolutionism. no, schroeder.  non sequitur.
 * I'm not sure I follow your argument here. Including atheism in a hypothetical "evolution" template would work if we had a section devoted to "beliefs influenced by the theory", for example. Joshuaschroeder 22:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it would not, because atheism existed before evolution, and will exist long after darwinism passes the way of spontaneous generation. you're just making arguments you know are bullshit to get what you want here, as usual.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism came into being after creationism. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that's an apples and oranges fallacy. modern geocentrism came into being before MODERN creationism, and ANCIENT geocentrism came into being before ANCIENT geocentrism.  Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you had a typo above here, but if I'm to get your drift, you think that there is a "modern" creationism which came into being after "modern" geocentrism. Modern creationism, in my estimation, began with Morris' book in the 1960s. The modern geocentrists starting writing their bits well after that. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * that's not what you said above. you said modern geocentrism came into being after creationism.  read it.  THAT is false.  the point is that on an article about evolution, "ideas influenced by evolution" are NOT appropriate.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But modern geocentrism by Sugenis and Bouw was developed well after the 60s. Why is this false? I'm not sure what your second statement means, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 5) your SOLE PURPOSE in forcing geocentrism onto the page is to association creationism with sheer ignorance.
 * I included it because Modern geocentrism is a form of creationism. I'm not trying to guilt-by-association anything.
 * right. truth and light.  i think you lost your credibility with Ungtss vs. mainstream science, schroeder.
 * now, schroeder, YOU are not the status quo -- the status quo is what the template WAS -- you MUST justify your edit before changing it, when it is contested. you are NOT the only editor on board here, despite your delusions.  DISCUSS these things and come to consensus BEFORE you mangle and destroy pages about ideas you haven't the foggiest idea about.  Ungtss 01:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have discussed my points in some detail, which you have ignored.
 * 1) Modern geocentrists believe that true creationism necessarily relies on a geocentric support. Modern geocentrism is a form-arugment within the creationist structure.
 * no, it is not. you are conflating two disparate ideas: creationism and cosmology.  Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, then what about Creationist cosmologies? Should that page be deleted? Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * creationist cosmologies relate directly to explaining the AGE and ORIGIN of the universe, not the orientation of the earth within it. they are explicitly about the creation.  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern geocentrism talks explicitly about the origin if not the age. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * modern geocentrists can also be CREATIONISTS, but when they talk of CREATION, they use CREATIONIST arguments. Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When a Modern Geocentrists talks about the "CREATION" of the Earth, they argue that the Earth was created at the center of the universe. Is that a creationist argument then?
 * no. that's the point i'm trying to get through the skull.  it is not a creationist argument to say that the earth is at the center of the universe -- that is an EMPIRICAL statement.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that creationism isn't empirical? I'm not sure I follow you. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 2) Modern geocentrists accept geocentrism in the same fashion that creationists accept creation science.
 * that's irrelevent as to placing geocentrism on a creationist page. Ungtss 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that the connections between the two movements are undeniable. Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * naturally you think they're linked, because it serves your purpose to associate creationism with ideas based on raw stupidity. how many geocentrist organizations are cited or referenced on the creationist pages?  huh?  how many?  Ungtss 23:44, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What are the creationist pages? The ones in Wikipedia or the ones that are referenced by Wikipedia? Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the ones on wikipedia. Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this argument. Wikipedia is constantly up for editting. Just because modern geocentrism hasn't found its way into articles on wikipedia doesn't mean that it isn't related to some of those articles. Joshuaschroeder 14:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 3) Modern geocentrists claim to be part of the creation movement.
 * and creationists claim to be part of science. would you like creation science put up on the science page?
 * You can try it out. I think that it would fit better under pseudoscience. Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, how do you think your evolutionists would respond to such an act? do you think the evolutionists would approve of such a move, even tho, as you argued, "creationists claim to be science?"  Ungtss 23:30, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any "evolutionists". Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * thank god for them. Ungtss 13:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted today after reverting to my reversion a few days ago. Please explain. Joshuaschroeder 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have not responded to my query about changing your own reversion. Joshuaschroeder 02:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like you, Ungtss, to stop your offensive messages. Discuss, please, your points politely. --Neigel von Teighen 14:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'd like to. unfortunately, i've been dealing with his persistant vandalism for about a month now, i'm furious with him, and i don't have the self-restraint to pretend that i consider him to be a rational human being.  Ungtss 02:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Control yourself. You have to stop your attacks whether Mr. Schroeder (as you call him) is agreeing with you or not. He is not vandalizing; he's contributing with stuff you don't like. I don't want you to change your opinion, of course. I only want you to discuss this. --Neigel von Teighen 20:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. I apologize.  I'm going to have to withdraw from this discussion for a while.  I haven't been able to control myself since he stated that it was his intent to Make Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared look ridiculous to aid in his campaign (two VfDs in a week!) to delete it, subsequently created a page entitled Ungtss vs. Mainstream science in geology (which i subsequently had deleted), put Creation geology up for VfD for absolutely no reason, and got Creation biology protected on a version he preferred, only to disappear completely for three days.  Now I find him trying to associate creationism with modern geocentrism (one of the oldest and most groundless tactics in the book used by these people to discredit things they are afraid of) in the absence of any logical reason at all, and i'm afraid i lost my cool.  i can't communicate with him right now without letting him know exactly what i think of him, so i'm going to bow out for the moment.  Ungtss 20:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

demoting extreme minority view geocentrism.)
This is fine by me. If you want to make another category in here calling it "controversial creationism" or something like that, I'd find that reasonable as well. I just think we have to be fair. If someone says that their idea is creationist, even if both you and I disagree with them, we should include their idea under creationism, shouldn't we? Joshuaschroeder 06:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds fine with me. Ungtss 16:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the black background really necessary?
I cannot see anything that's written on the black background. Can we change it? Joshuaschroeder 19:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I really liked the old format...--Neigel von Teighen 19:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I think a horizontal layout is better. The vertical one just distracted to much in my POV. As for colors what do you suggest a grey bg?

will this suit you, I think is too blank and somebody may rise objections that we are trying to make the template less prominent. What about purple again but with grey in the middle?

--LexCorp 00:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the bottom one. I think we might consider removing the picture too. It doesn't really add anything and really isn't creationism at all (Michaelangelo wasn't trying to make a creationist propaganda piece when he made the Sistene Chapel). Joshuaschroeder 01:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This one?
 * yes, Joshuaschroeder 15:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Great! --Neigel von Teighen 22:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New design: Don't get the point
I can understand why the vertical format was somewhat inconvenient, and why the graphic doesn't work as well in a horizontal format (it's based on having a fixed width and lining up with what's below, but horizontally you can't have a fixed height to the text so nothing lines up), but I do have to say that the new box is exceeding less attractive and much less useful in it's location on the page. Is the partial page layout inconvenience of a vertical box (used on many, many other pages to great effect) really enough of a problem to necessitate changing to this big hulking bland box? DreamGuy 14:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * the vertical template was way to big and distracting. Most of the vertical templates are very thin and plains as to minimise the distraction. Beside the vertical design works better for chronological event lists. As for the template being to plain I agree and I think I have found a solution for the pic in the following,

so I am updating.--LexCorp 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

let's talk format.
why are we horizontal and at the bottom of the page? i think we should be vertical and at the top because:
 * The current template style is the most common for those articles not about history or geography. Compare to the evolution template, for example. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) it fills up the white space next to the table of contents
 * While this is true, it was also a pretty big distraction and is problematic for the shorter articles. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're telling me that a template allowing easy navigation between a number of pages on topic is a distraction, schroeder? Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy navigability wasn't the distraction, but its position in the article was distracting because it is such a large template. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * so despite its usefulness, attractiveness, and easy navigability, it was distracting to schroeder because it was too big. you obviously prefer big empty white spaces with no text in them to easy, navigable templates.  i see.  Ungtss 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) it's much more easily accessible, allowing people to scan the various articles.
 * I like the accessibility of upstairs templates too, but I think other considerations outweigh it. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Which considerations? Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The ones discussed above. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * none were discussed above except for your tasteless assertion that it was "distracting." "from what?" one might ask.  "from the nonsense, of course!"  Ungtss 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) it allows for the picture which has been removed
 * I'm not sure I understand the point of the picture since Michaelangelo wasn't trying to make a propaganda piece and I don't think there's any evidence that he agreed with the majority of creationists views. Joshuaschroeder 05:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * nonsense. it's a picture of the creation of man by God.  propaganda has nothing to do with it.  propaganda is your speciality, not ours.  Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Invectives aside, there might be better pictures that illustrate creationism. In particular, since much of creationism deals with literal accounts and Michaelangelo enjoyed taking artistic license, it may actually be considered a problematic rendering of the myth. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * i see that when you call creationism propaganda it's okay, but when i return the favor, it's an invective. as to the rest, write this down, folks: the world famous painting, Creation of Adam is not true enough to the text to satisfy schroeder's taste for biblical literalism.
 * I like the Michaelangelo. Pictures usually make things look more professional and appealing, and as artistic interpretations of creationism go it's one of the most dramatic, memorable, and well known.  However I agree that horizontal and at the bottom of the page is the better choice here. -- ciphergoth 13:35, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * I still haven't heard any reasons why, tho. why is it better?  Ungtss 13:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the rest of the talkpage. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there, schroeder. Ungtss 19:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, gentlemen? Ungtss 02:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I think it should be horizontal and at the top of the page, like it was. Claims that the "majority" of other examples are horizontal is false in my experience, as I've only seen a couple others elsewhere horizontal while the vast majority of them are vertical. DreamGuy 15:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * From the context, i think you meant "should be vertical." i agree with you, dreamguy.  how would you suggest going about this?  Ungtss 17:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many pages start with images, which is why most nav bars are on the bottom. Nav bars don't contain images because you can not represent all the topics on a nav bar with a single image. Bensaccount 16:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two strange topics
I might by that the principle of relativity is a creationist topic, though I'd like someone to give a good argument as to why. However, I fail to see how heliocentrism is creationist at all. Please respond. Joshuaschroeder 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You have determined that geocentrism is a creationist topic, because it is about "a creationist belief about how God created the universe." helicentrism and principle of relativity fit the same criteria -- in fact, they are the majority opinion by a vast margin on the issue of how God created the universe.  most creationists believe God created the Earth to revolve around the sun, and that, because of the principle of relativity, it is both possible and meaningless to say that the Earth is at the center of the universe.  therefore, if geocentrism is a form of creationism, then heliocentrism and relativity are the corresponding majority creationist opinions.  Ungtss 12:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, modern geocentrism (not geocentrism) is the topic and it is included because they contend to be part of the creationist endeavor. I understand that heliocentrism and relativity are the "majority" creationist opinions, but the pages that they link to wouldn't be correctly categorized under creationism (whereas, per the Talk:Modern geocentrism page, modern geocentrism is). Thanks for explaining yourself, Ungtss. I will now revert. Joshuaschroeder 15:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If the majority cosmological opinion of creationists is not relevent for purposes of the template, then the fringe minority views are not either. i will now revert.  Ungtss 15:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The majority views are relevent inasmuch as they represent a unique creationist endeavor. Modern geocentrism is a unique creationist endeavor. Relativity is not.
 * That is an empirical claim that hasn't been backed with a cite, but only with internet research. anyone who has been outside the western world knows that's plainly false.  no go.  Ungtss 22:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"current cosmology accepted by virtually all creationists is based on relativity" is the most absurd argument for inclusion on this template I've seen. One might as well argue that math, biology, apologetics, the English language, etc. should all be added because Creationism is based in some part on all of them. Only those topics that are pertinent should be listed here. DreamGuy 15:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ungtss is just upset because modern geocentrism and flat earth are included in the template. They are included because the proponents of these ideas believe that they are strictly inline with creationist thought. Since we really can only go by people's word as to whether they are creationist or not, a fair template includes their ideas. While this argument is obvious to most people who look into the subject, Ungtss thinks this is actually a plot by the evil mainstreamers to sully the good-name of creationists by tacking on outlandish ideas to them. As typical of Ungtss' editorial style, when he doesn't like what consensus has shown to be true, he tries to get his POV inserted in the backdoor. Joshuaschroeder 15:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. the majority view of creationist cosmology fits the criteria you outlined above -- "They are included because the proponents of these ideas believe that they are strictly inline with creationist thought."  you're merely serving your pov of having only nonsense on the template, without allowing anything that actually makes sense.  Ungtss 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The proponents of relativity do not believe that they are strictly inline with creationist thought. Neither do those who accept the Copernican Revolution. Creationist may believe that they are inline with relativity or heliocentrism, but as Dreamguy points out, they might also be inline with a whole assortment of other topics that are not pertinent to creationism in and of itself. Joshuaschroeder 23:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * I am a proponent of relativity, and i believe that i am strictly in line with creationist thought. i find it theologically untenable to imagine that a place created by a divine being would be at the center of anything.  i take passages like "the earth is god's footstool" as an indication of our insignificance in the cosmic order of things.  it is my creationist view.  it is also the creationist view of AiG, which promotes it strongly, and finds it "sad" that some creationists reject it.  by your criteria, it's a "type of creationism."  no go.  Ungtss 23:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ungtss, you are a proponent of relativity. But so are many who are not creationists. That is the point--the subject is neutral with respect to creationism. Contrast that to modern geocentrism where every modern geocentrist cited in the article is a creationist. I know you have this chip on your shoulder about "knowing" that there are modern geocentrists out there who are not creationists, but I haven't seen you show that this is the case at all. Joshuaschroeder 01:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The "chip" on my shoulder originates with your assertion that your personal research is somehow superior to mine. you are making an extraordinary empirical claim -- that there are no geocentrists who are not creationists -- without backing it up with a scholar who believes as you do.  you're arguing "well i've found some books published by creationist geocentrists, but none found by non-creationist geocentrists."  it's personal research, and it's based on the false criterion that geocentrists must publish in order to exist.  and further, you are using that personal research argument to justify your inclusion of geocentrism and your exclusion of the majority opinion.  there's no reason in your argument.  period.  Ungtss 12:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, my claim is much weaker than the one you think I'm making. I'm merely stating the claim that all the modern geocentrists referred to in the article about modern geocentrism are creationists. I also notice that you are pretty sloppy with your use of 'geocentrist' vs. 'modern geocentrist'. The article doesn't simply refer to modern geocentrists as people who believe in a geocentric universe today. It is refering to a particular movement that seeks to establish scientific and religious (in particular, Christian) argumentation for a belief in geocentrism. The groups exist, they are well-documented, and they are creationists. They may be in the minority of creationists, but that doesn't make them unworthy of inclusion.
 * As for your claim that there should be a representation of the "majority" opinion in the creationist template, I can only wonder at this. There are creationists who believe in the Big Bang. Should we include that? There are self-described creationists who believe in human evolution. Should we include that? There are creationists who believe in UFOs. Should we include that? Of course not. The template is designed to include things that are strictly related to the topic of creationism. As much as you are angry about modern geocentrists claiming that they are talking about creationism, to be NPOV in the matter, we should include them because they do not deviate from their claim that their arguments are grounded in creationist conceits. This is in contrast to the principle of relativity which makes no mention of creationism whatsoever. Joshuaschroeder 18:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * this demonstrates the absurdity of your argument that geocentrism should be on the template. geocentrism falls in the same category as the above beliefs.  there are creationists who believe God created the universe in the big bang, just as there are those who believe he created the earth in the middle of the universe.  but neither of those topics are relevent to the template.  modern geocentrism is not a type of creationism.  it is a type of cosmology.  but in any event, there's no reason for me to repeat reality to you.  you've chosen to ignore it, and ignore it you will.  carry on.  Ungtss 18:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You continue to bury your head in the sand. All modern geocentrists who we quoted chose their belief in modern geocentrism based on a creationist conceit. Most who buy the Big Bang do it for reasons other than creationism. Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * none of the modern geocentrists who we quoted chose their beliefs based on the "creation conceit" (whatever you're defining that as for the moment) -- there's not a reference to genesis in the bunch, nor anything in the bible saying "and God created the Earth in the center of the universe." geocentrists based their beliefs on metaphorical passages in joshua and other nonsense that has nothing to do with creation.  creationism is about creation.  geocentrism is about where the earth is.  just because somebody says "God made things this way" doesn't make their idea creationist.  remarkable how many non-sequiturs such an ostensibly educated individual such as yourself is capable of:(.  Ungtss 18:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ungtss, I understand that you reject Modern Geocentrism and think it's incompatible with creationism. We aren't debating that. However, Buow and Sungenis and others all write about how modern geocentrism is the true creationist ideal. You may claim that creationists should only refer to Genesis and they may disagree. You may claim that their beliefs have "nothing" to do with creation and they may disagree. You may claim that their ideas as not creationist and they may disagree. I'll let the two of you fight it out. In the meantime, we have an encyclopedia to write. Joshuaschroeder 19:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your criteria that "the proponents must think it is relevent to creationism" is absolutely faulty. many racists think racism is the true creationist ideal.  many vegetarians think vegetarianism is the true creationist ideal (as there was no eating of meat before the flood).  the fact that proponents of a topic say they are relevent to creationism is not an acceptable criteria.  for purposes of this encyclopedia you're bent on hindering, we need to come up with a RATIONAL definition of creationism -- beliefs about the manner in which the earth was created fit the bill.  beliefs about the shape or location of the earth do not.  you're wrong, schroeder.  Ungtss 19:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A large number of racists are not creationists. A large number of vegetarians are not creationists. If you want to talk about some sort of ceremonial Seventh Day Adventist vegetarianism that is independent of vegetarianism and whose membership includes only creationists, then that would be the equivalent to Modern Geocentrism. Your idealization of RATIONAL has been shown, quite frankly, to be a bit off on these pages. You're going to have to try to get along with others if you want to play in this playground. Joshuaschroeder 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * and a large number of geocentrists are not creationists. your personal research claim that there are no non-creationist geocentrists in the world today is nonsense, and it's a wonder you don't laugh at yourself for claiming it.  as to your playground crack, take note: i get along with normal, civil, psychologically healthy people on the playground.  it's only bullies i have to fight.  Ungtss 22:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"your personal research claim that there are no non-creationist geocentrists in the world today is nonsense" --> never been claimed by me. Perhaps you're thinking of the strawman you invented. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Cute. anyone with any interest in reality can read this page and see how bald-faced your latest lie is.  carry on.  Ungtss 19:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this template still needed?
This template appears to be (i) underutilised (only used on a handful of articles) & out of date (many of the articles listed have been renamed or merged). Is it still needed, or does Creationism2 suffice? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In case the history of the template is still useful, I have redirected to Creationism2 instead of deleting it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Creationism


text:
Eisenhower Trophy

The Eisenhower Trophy (World Men's Amateur Team Championships) is the biennial World Amateur Team Championship for men organized by the International Golf Federation. Since the tournament was first played in 1958, it is named after Dwight D. Eisenhower, the President of the United States at the time, who was a keen amateur golfer. The equivalent competition for women is the Espirito Santo Trophy.

Results
The 1958 championship resulted in a tie. There was an 18-hole playoff which Australia won with a score of 222 to the United States 224.

From 1958 to 2000 the teams had four players with the best three scores counting for each round. From 2002 the teams have been three players with two counting. The 2004, 2010 and 2012 championships were reduced to 54 holes because of bad weather.

Players who have featured in a winning Eisenhower Trophy team and later become leading professional golfers include: Jack Nicklaus, Bruce Fleisher, Tom Kite, Lanny Wadkins, Ben Crenshaw, Curtis Strange, Scott Hoch, Hal Sutton, Michael Campbell, Tiger Woods, Ben Curtis and Luke Donald.

Results summary
There were joint silver medalists (and no bronze medalists) in 1982 and 1990. There were joint bronze medalists in 1992, 2002, 2012 (3) and 2016.

The "Great Britain and Ireland" team represented the two separate independent countries of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from 1958 to 2000. From 2002, England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (a combined Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland team) have competed as separate teams.

Of the teams that have competed in all 31 championships, only Bermuda has never won a medal; Bermuda's best finish was 16th in 1958.

Source:

Future sites

 * 2025 Tanah Merah Country Club (Tampines Course), Singapore
 * 2027 Royal Golf Dar Es Salam, Morocco

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

title: Eisenhower Trophy


text: Category:Paintball

title: Category:Paintball


text: Template:Quebec-bio-stub

title: Template:Quebec-bio-stub


text:
Category:American English

The varieties of the English language spoken in the United States.

title: Category:American English


text:
File:Bolivia CoA test.PNG

Bolivian Coat of Arms Test.

title: File:Bolivia CoA test.PNG


text:
Sandbox (band)

Sandbox was a Canadian alternative rock band active in the 1990s. The band consisted of Paul Murray on lead vocals, Mike Smith and Jason Archibald on guitar, Scott MacFarlane on bass and Troy Shanks on drums.

Formation
Sandbox was formed by Mike Smith in New Glasgow in 1992, originally as a cover band named Sandbox Legacy. Lead singer Paul Murray is the nephew of singer Anne Murray.

The band debuted with the 1993 indie EP, Maskman.

Canadian chart success
Their debut album Bionic was released in 1995. The album spawned their most well known singles, "Curious" and "Collide". "Curious" reached No. 34 on Canada's RPM Singles chart and No. 8 on Canada's Alternative chart, while "Collide" peaked at #57 in the RPM100. Both songs received regular airplay on MuchMusic.

They were nominated for Best New Group at the Juno Awards of 1996.

Their second album, A Murder in the Glee Club was released in 1997. Produced by Don Fleming, the album was a concept album about the aftermath of a murder. The single "Carry" peaked at #38 in the RPM100 the week of January 19, 1998. However, the band was at this time facing difficulties with their record label, who wanted them to pursue a more commercial alternative rock sound instead of their Haligonian power pop style, and they were dropped from the label after the album's release.

Breakup
Following the dissolution of the band, Smith went on to play Bubbles in the Canadian cult hit television series Trailer Park Boys. Bassist Scott MacFarlane played for Crush and Gordie Sampson. Jason Archibald graduated from Dalhousie University in 2001 with a degree in medicine.

Studio albums

 * 1995 - Bionic
 * 1997 - A Murder in the Glee Club

Extended plays

 * 1993 - Maskman

title: Sandbox (band)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenapse

 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. jni 14:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zenapse
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.
 * del. Yeah, please delete this. its embarrassing. I was drunk...etc..etc. sorry for the spam (stephen@blackroses.com zenapse.org)
 * del. neologism. Mikkalai 05:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur. article appears to be an advert for author's blog.  Unless proven otherwise, deletion is the best recourse. Fernando Rizo 05:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, blogger promo. Megan1967 08:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism is my call. "Zenapse is a fabricated word" says it all. Zzyzx11 09:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, self-promotion. jni 14:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What they said. --Phil | Talk 12:14, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ditto. Not to mention that "snowballing inertia" is a direct contradiction in terms! Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 09:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenapse


text:
Birdwood

Birdwood may refer to:

Places
In Australia
 * Birdwood, New South Wales
 * Birdwood, South Australia

In Canada
 * Mount Birdwood, a mountain in Alberta, Canada

In the United States
 * Birdwood, Nebraska, an unincorporated community
 * Birdwood (Thomasville, Georgia), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Thomas County, Georgia
 * Birdwood (Charlottesville, Virginia), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Albemarle County, Virginia

Individuals

 * George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood (1832 – 1917), Anglo-Indian official and naturalist
 * Herbert Mills Birdwood (1837 – 1907), British administrator in India
 * William Birdwood, 1st Baron Birdwood (1865 – 1951), British general
 * Christopher Birdwood, 2nd Baron Birdwood (1899 – 1962), British peer
 * Jane Birdwood, Baroness Birdwood (1913 – 2000), British political activist

title: Birdwood


text:
Batroc the Leaper

Georges Batroc the Leaper (Batroc le Sauteur) is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby, the character first appeared in Tales of Suspense #75, 1966. He is a mercenary and a master of the French form of kick-boxing known as savate, commonly depicted as an adversary of Captain America, and a mentor of Gwen Poole. Batroc's name derives from the word batrachia, a classification of amphibians that includes frogs, which also plays on the stereotype of calling French people frogs.

The character was played by Georges St-Pierre in the Marvel Cinematic Universe film Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) and the Disney+ miniseries The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and animated series What If…? (both 2021).

Publication history
Batroc, created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, first appeared in Tales of Suspense #75 in March 1966. He has reappeared in various Marvel titles ever since.

Sporting a new costume designed by John Romita Jr., Batroc served as Klaw's top lieutenant in the first arc of Reginald Hudlin's 2005 re-launch of Black Panther.

Sporting a muted, subtle redesign by Gurihiru, Batroc served as the primary mentor of Gwenpool in Christopher Hastings' 2016–2018 series The Unbelievable Gwenpool, with their relationship being described as "one of the warmest aspects" of the series.

Fictional character biography
Georges Batroc was born in Marseille, France, and served in the French Foreign Legion. He is a French costumed mercenary who specializes in savate (also known as "La Boxe Française"), a form of kickboxing, with acrobatic skills and unusual articulate flexibility. Although he has primarily appeared in the pages of Captain America, he has also faced off against the Punisher, Spider-Man, Deadpool, Hawkeye, Iron Fist and Gambit. Batroc has occasionally led his own team, "Batroc's Brigade", although the membership has changed over time. The group has primarily fought Captain America.

In the character's first appearance, he was hired by Them to steal the Inferno-42 cylinder. He first battled Captain America during this mission. When Batroc introduced himself with typical bluster, Cap revealed, to Batroc's delight, that he had already heard of the mercenary: "Batroc the Leaper, eh? A master of la savate, the French art of boxing with the feet!" Later, he was again hired by HYDRA and abducted Sharon Carter for them. He lured Captain America into a rematch, in which he insisted HYDRA not intervene, and again lost; however, when HYDRA agents prepared to kill both Cap and himself, Batroc, incensed at such "men wizout honair", switched sides to help Cap against HYDRA. In both of these stories, Batroc was regarded as a deadly combatant, his skill respected by enemies and employers alike.

Batroc was then hired by a foreign power to locate a "seismo-bomb" with the first known Batroc's Brigade (consisting of the original Swordsman and the Living Laser). Batroc battled Captain America again. The Machinesmith's Baron Strucker android known as "the Hood" then hired a new Batroc's Brigade (consisting of the Porcupine and Whirlwind) to battle Captain America.

Batroc then formed a third Batroc's Brigade, which consisted of various unnamed henchmen, rather than known supervillains, since supervillains had failed Batroc in the past. The alien Jakar, concealing his true nature and intent, hired this group to abduct children from New York and to battle Captain America and the Falcon. Although Batroc felt no compunction about abducting children, upon learning Jakar's true nature and his intent to use the children's souls to revive his comatose race, he felt his "sense of honair" had been violated by the deception, and he again switched sides, aiding Captain America and the Falcon to rescue the children. Ward Meachum then hired Batroc's Brigade, who battled Iron Fist and a ninja warrior, several Brigade members dying in the process.

For a while after that, Batroc operated without a Brigade. Alongside an extra-dimensional demon ally, Batroc attempted a theft of transuranium, but was stopped by Captain America and Spider-Man. Batroc was also a member of the ersatz "Defenders", a group of villains who were impersonating the actual Defenders. They committed robberies while posing as members of the Defenders, until stopped by a Defenders contingent. Alongside Mister Hyde, Batroc attempted an extortion scheme against Manhattan. He battled Captain America, but when Mister Hyde decided to carry out the threat, which would kill thousands, Batroc, again showing that there were some lines he would not cross, aided Captain America against Hyde, saving the city.

Batroc then formed a new, longer-lasting lineup of Batroc's Brigade - this one consisting of Zaran the Weapons Master and Machete. This team was first seen when Obadiah Stane contracted them to steal Captain America's shield and Batroc finally succeeded. Trick Shot then hired Batroc's Brigade to battle Hawkeye. Baron Helmut Zemo then hired Batroc's Brigade to acquire the fragments of the Bloodstone. They battled Captain America and Diamondback. The Brigade was later hired by Maelstrom to help him build a device that could destroy the universe and battled the Great Lakes Avengers. Alongside Snakebite, Batroc also battled the Punisher.

Later, Batroc the Leaper showed up as a member of a small army of villains organized by Klaw to invade Wakanda, which included the Rhino, the Radioactive Man, the Cannibal, and the Vatican Black Knight. He was defeated by Black Panther's royal bodyguards.

During the crossover JLA/Avengers, Batroc briefly confronted Batman when he was one of the villains recruited by Krona for his army. The Dark Knight defeated him (off-panel). Batroc's Brigade then face Batman, but he is assisted by the Black Panther, the Huntress and the Black Widow, in defeating the Brigade.

Batroc had a daughter, Marie, who is teamed in villainy with the daughter of similar B-list supervillain the Tarantula. Both daughters take their fathers' respective costumes and titles. The Taskmaster expresses his shock that the Tarantula and Batroc are heterosexual before soundly beating the two villains' offspring, tossing them effortlessly off of a building before shooting them in the heads, killing them both, noting that he also "hates ethnic stereotypes."

Batroc briefly served among the group of villains forcibly drafted into Baron Helmut Zemo's Thunderbolts army. But after returning to federal custody, Batroc registered with the Superhuman Registration Act, and was sent to a superhuman training facility located at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia to train recruits in the martial arts before being transferred over to Camp Hammond.

Ultimately, however, Batroc found government work unsatisfactory and returned to his mercenary life, confronting the new Captain America while on a job to steal an item from the United Nations. Also, he was working with The Man with No Face, a mysterious being from Captain America's past. It is soon revealed that Batroc was stealing the original Human Torch's remains for reverse engineering.

During the "Dark Reign" storyline, Quasimodo analyzed Batroc the Leaper for Norman Osborn. He states that Batroc should be apprehended and punished to serve as a warning to anyone who dares desert the Fifty State Initiative.

By the events of The Unbelievable Gwenpool, Batroc and a handful of other super individuals were corralled into working for MODOK against their wishes. He was fine with it, figuring on earning some money until MODOK would eventually decide to kill him. There he met the metafictional Gwen Poole a.k.a. Gwenpool who killed their team's assassin and took credit for his kills, earning her an unwanted place on the team. Finding out that she has no powers and only killed the assassin through luck, after noticing her lack of skill during a fight with Thor, he decided to turn her in, until she convinced him that she was actually from another universe and knew useful information; Batroc is surprised to realise from Gwen's information that he remembers nothing from before his first fight with Captain America, Gwen explaining that he did not exist before that point due to it being his first appearance, and that he was based on French stereotypes, his Wikipedia page mentioning his name to be derived from frogs. Batroc then decided to make Gwen less of a liability by teaching her actual combat moves and the use of weapons, allowing her to subsequently defeat MODOK when he independently found out her secret and took over the team briefly; that coming Christmas, Batroc then took time to mourn the deaths of his wife and daughter. After a fight with some aliens in which they did not get paid, and their base was destroyed, the group broke up, briefly reuniting after being captured by Arcade.

After Gwen learns her series is coming to an end as a direct result of choosing to be a hero rather than a villain, erasing an older alternate "evil" version of herself from existence, she convinces Batroc to let her accompany him on a heist of a casino owned by Chance; having been informed of Gwen's new-found ability to manipulate reality through the confines of the Marvel Universe existing in comic books, Batroc has Gwen catch the sound effects as he kicks in the door of Chance's safe, allowing him to do so silently, before escaping with Chance's gold upon being caught by him. After learning from Batroc that Chance was "a Spider-Man bad guy" she had not recognised, and that they have been out "Robin Hooding", Gwen is touched when Batroc obliviously and honourably reveals that he had put the money aside for her into legitimate accounts, and believes life as a hero is better for her than the mercenary life he himself lives. Accepting her series' cancellation and that future Marvel Comics writers will not provide Batroc the same caliber of characterisation he has had in The Unbelievable Gwenpool, instead relegating him to being a mindless two-dimensional henchman and minor antagonist once more, Gwen hugs him "Goodbye, Georges Batroc.", and prepares to face oblivion. Over a finale montage set over several future months, years, and decades, Batroc joins Gwen in confronting MODOK when he returns from space, and remains canonically in-contact with her for the rest of her existence.

During the Secret Empire storyline, Batroc the Leaper alongside the Living Laser and Whirlwind, trapped inside the Cosmic Cube, attack a haggard, bearded man in a torn World War II army uniform who identifies himself as Steve Rogers. He is assisted by people that appear to be Sam Wilson and a Bucky Barnes with both his arms.

During the "King in Black" storyline, Batroc the Leaper is among the villains recruited by Mayor Wilson Fisk to be part of his Thunderbolts at the time of Knull's invasion.

Powers and abilities
Batroc the Leaper has no superhuman abilities, but is in peak physical condition in every respect. He is an Olympic-level weightlifter and has extraordinary agility and reflexes. His leg muscles are particularly well developed, enabling him to leap great distances equal to an Olympic athlete. He is an expert martial artist and hand-to-hand combatant who specializes in savate, and he is also adept at other martial arts such as Krav Maga. He is also skilled in parkour. He is also a skilled military tactician, having formerly been in the French Foreign Legion.

Batroc is also an experienced thief and smuggler who can speak both French and English.

Ultimate Marvel
The Ultimate Marvel incarnation of Batroc the Leaper is a French jewelry thief. This version's martial arts skills are also present. When he and his thugs were robbing a jewelry store, they are stopped by the new Spider-Man's "venom strike".

MC2
In the MC2 continuity, Batroc the Leaper still operates his own criminal syndicate, until stopped by American Dream.

Marvel Zombies
A zombiefied version of Batroc the Leaper appears in the third installment of the Marvel Zombies series, where he is killed by Absorbing Man's trademark concrete ball and chain.

House of M
In the alternate continuity of the 2005 "House of M" storyline, Batroc the Leaper is a member of the Hood's extensive-criminal empire. He participated in the takeover of Santo Rico and stayed to fight when the Red Guard came, to protect the sapiens population. He was the first of them to die, attacked by Agent Toad and terminated by two of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s soldiers.

Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe Again
In Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe Again, Batroc appears alongside Bullseye as one of two mercenaries sent by Red Skull to kill Deadpool after he starts killing off villains. They are ambushed by Deadpool however and Batroc ends up killed by him.

Television

 * Batroc the Leaper appears in the "Captain America" segment of The Marvel Super Heroes, voiced by Gillie Fenwick.
 * Batroc the Leaper appears in The Super Hero Squad Show episode "Stranger From a Savage Land!", voiced by A. J. Buckley. This version is a member of Doctor Doom's Lethal Legion.
 * Batroc the Leaper appears in Black Panther, voiced by JB Blanc.
 * Batroc the Leaper makes a cameo appearance in The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episode "The Big House" as an inmate of the titular prison.
 * Batroc the Leaper appears in Ultimate Spider-Man, voiced by Rob Paulsen. This version's moniker stems from a pair of leg bracers that enhance his kicking and leaping power. He is also capable of scaling up vertical walls, provided that they have footholds for him to brace his feet against. In the fourth season, HYDRA upgrades him with a full-body exoskeleton formed from pure energy.

Marvel Cinematic Universe
Georges Batroc appears in media set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, portrayed by Georges St-Pierre. This version is an Algerian mercenary and pirate.
 * Batroc first appears in the live-action film Captain America: The Winter Soldier, wherein he hijacks a S.H.I.E.L.D. ship until a strike team led by Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff neutralize and arrest Batroc and his men. Nick Fury later reveals to Rogers that he hired Batroc to take the ship to give him an excuse to send Romanoff on board so she could steal confidential S.H.I.E.L.D. files pointing to a HYDRA conspiracy.
 * Batroc subsequently appears in the live-action Disney+ miniseries The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, wherein he allies himself with Karli Morgenthau and the Flag Smashers to seek revenge on Sam Wilson for foiling a heist of his before Batroc is killed by Sharon Carter for attempting to extort her.
 * St-Pierre voices an alternate timeline version of Batroc in the Disney+ animated series What If…? episode "What If... the Watcher Broke His Oath?".

Video games

 * Batroc the Leaper appears as a mini-boss in Spider-Man and Captain America in Doctor Doom's Revenge.
 * Batroc the Leaper appears as a mini-boss in Marvel Avengers Alliance.
 * Batroc the Leaper appears as a mini-boss in Marvel Heroes.

Miscellaneous
Batroc the Leaper appears in the motion comic Marvel Video Comics: Training Day, voiced by Mark Oliver.

Merchandise
Batroc the Leaper received an action figure in Hasbro's Marvel Legends toy line.

title: Batroc the Leaper


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Framing (social communication theory)

 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. Joyous 18:52, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Framing (social communication theory)

 * del. neologism, original research. Mikkalai 05:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, something went wrong with my search. Yes, it is in wide circulation, in this very meaning. Mikkalai 10:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it might be a neologism but it's not original research, and "lakoff +framing" gets 97,000 hits Kappa 05:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not original research since Professor Lakoff has discussed a concept called framing. But I thought it was in terms of "Social Psychology" and/or "Cognitive Linguistics," not "Social Communication Theory". Zzyzx11 09:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 10:28, 20 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.


text:
Enrico Chiesa

Enrico Chiesa ( born 29 December 1970) is an Italian football coach and former striker.

Chiesa played for several Italian clubs throughout his career, and performed regularly in Serie A for over a decade, winning titles with Sampdoria, Parma, and Fiorentina; he later also spent a spell with Lazio. He moved to Siena where he became a household name and, thanks to his goals, the Tuscan side stayed in the top division for many seasons. He retired with Figline in 2010, the club with which he subsequently began his coaching career. He won the 1998–99 UEFA Cup and Coppa Italia with Parma, finishing the former tournament as the top scorer, with 8 goals. At international level, he played for the Italy national team on 17 occasions between 1996 and 2001, scoring 7 goals, and was also part of the Italian squads that took part at UEFA Euro 1996 and the 1998 FIFA World Cup.

He is father to Federico Chiesa, who is a professional footballer himself currently playing as Juventus’s #7 forward in Italian football’s top flight, Serie A.

Club career
Born in Genoa, Chiesa made his early playing footsteps at amateur club Pontedecimo (1986–87). He then moved to Sampdoria, for which he made his debut on 16 April 1989 in a 1–0 loss at Roma in the 1988–89 Serie A. He then played for Teramo of Serie C2 and successively Chieti of Serie C1 before returning to Sampdoria in 1992. Failing to impress, he then joined Modena in Serie B for the 1993–94 season, and later Cremonese during the 1994–95 season, where he scored 14 goals in their Serie A campaign. In 1995, he returned again with the blucerchiati, forming a notable attacking duo with Roberto Mancini, and scoring 22 goals in 27 matches in Serie A.

In 1996, he was signed by rising club Parma, and contributed to his team's second-place finish behind Juventus, scoring 14 goals in the Serie A during his first season at the club. The second-place result allowed Parma to qualify for the UEFA Champions League the following season. With Parma, Chiesa won a UEFA Cup, a Coppa Italia, and a Supercoppa Italiana during the highly successful 1998–99 season, in which Parma also finished in fourth place in the Serie A. Chiesa became one of the best strikers in Italian football (when not injured). During his time at the club, he also formed a successful partnership with Argentine star striker Hernán Crespo, as the duo averaged 10–15 goals a season each. They also each scored in the 1999 UEFA Cup Final victory over Marseille, a competition in which Chiesa finished top scorer, with 8 goals.

In 1999, he was signed by Fiorentina for 28 billion lire (€14.46 million), a team looking to expand and bring in better players, in an attempt to keep club captain and talisman Gabriel Batistuta. Despite making regular appearances in his first season for La Viola, Chiesa was fighting for a place with Predrag Mijatović among others, and also had spells where he was out of form, and in the end only managed 6 goals in the League. In the 2000–01 season, Batistuta left for Roma and Fiorentina were plagued with injuries and financial problems. Meanwhile, Chiesa became the main striker for the club under manager Roberto Mancini, supported by playmaker Rui Costa, and scored 22 goals in 30 matches, finishing amongst the top 5 highest scorers in the league and helping Fiorentina to win the 2000–01 Coppa Italia over his former club, Parma, in the final; in the second leg at home, he set up Nuno Gomes's goal in a 1–1 draw, which allowed Fiorentina to clinch the title 2–1 on aggregate. The 2001–02 campaign proved to be a very difficult one: Chiesa started the campaign off strongly, scoring five goals in the first five matches of the season, but was ruled out for the rest of the season after sustaining a serious injury to his knee ligaments against Venezia on matchday five; left without Chiesa to lead the club's attack, Fiorentina were ultimately relegated at the end of the season. As a result of Fiorentina's relegation and financial troubles,  Chiesa subsequently moved to Lazio for the following season, where he however failed to play at his personal best.

In 2003, he joined Siena, where he became a fan favourite and a key player in the club's Serie A history, impressively reaching double scoring figures in Serie A during his first three seasons at the club. Despite a very poor 2006–07 season in which Chiesa was not able to score a single goal in Serie A, he was backed by the club and new trainer Andrea Mandorlini, who explicitly stated that he felt that Chiesa was still important to the team, and that he expected at least 15 goals from him in their 2007–08 Serie A campaign. However, he played only twice, scoring no goals once again, before he was signed by Figline of the Lega Pro Second Division. He scored five goals with Figline, thus giving his contribution to the team's promotion to the Lega Pro Prima Divisione. In the following season, his last as a footballer, he played a limited number of games due to suffering a fractured leg, an injury which forced him to stay out of contention for most of the season.

International career
Chiesa played for the Italian team from 1996 to 2001, collecting a total of 22 caps with 7 goals. Chiesa made his senior international debut in a 2–2 friendly draw against Belgium on 29 May 1996 in Cremona, marking the occasion with a goal. He was subsequently selected by manager Arrigo Sacchi to play for Italy at the UEFA Euro 1996 tournament later that year, ahead of other established strikers such as Roberto Baggio, Gianluca Vialli, and Giuseppe Signori. Chiesa appeared in two group stage matches, the first in a 2–1 defeat against the Czech Republic, where he scored Italy's only goal of the match, and the second in a 0–0 draw against Germany, as Italy were eliminated in the first round. He also was called up to the 1998 FIFA World Cup by manager Cesare Maldini as a replacement for Fabrizio Ravanelli. He appeared in Italy's opening group match of the 1998 World Cup, which ended in a 2–2 draw against Chile, also appearing as a substitute in the 1–0 victory in the round of 16 match against Norway. Italy were eliminated in the quarter-finals on penalties by hosts and eventual champions France. Under manager Dino Zoff, Chiesa appeared in Italy's 6–2 friendly win over the FIFA World Stars on 16 December 1998, organised to commemorate the centenary of the Italian Football Federation, scoring a hat-trick. He also scored a goal in a 4–0 victory over Wales in a European qualifying match in Bologna, on 5 June 1999. He made his final appearance for Italy under Giovanni Trapattoni, in Italy's 1–0 friendly win over South Africa in Perugia, on 25 April 2001. Alongside Alessandro Del Piero, Chiesa holds the unique record for the most goals scored by an Italian international coming off the bench (5). Chiesa is currently the last player to manage 2 goals in his first two Italy appearances.

Style of play
A prolific goalscorer, Chiesa was considered one of the most exciting and dynamic strikers in Italy during the mid-'90s. A quick, strong, hardworking, and elegant player, he was mainly deployed in a central role as a main striker throughout his career, but he could also play off of another forward as a supporting forward or on the wing, due to his vision, versatility, good technique, close control at speed, and tactical intelligence, which also enabled him to create goalscoring opportunities for his teammates. Possessing pace, stamina, good offensive movement, and a powerful and accurate shot with either foot from both inside and outside the box, he excelled during counter-attacks, and was known for his ability to make attacking runs into the area, and quickly strike the ball first time while on the run; he was also equally known for his ability to score with powerful or bending strikes from free-kicks, and is the joint ninth-highest goalscorer of all time from free kicks in Serie A, with 13 goals, alongside Michel Platini and Álvaro Recoba. Fabio Capello described Chiesa as a complete forward, and as a cross between Gigi Riva and Paolo Rossi, due to his opportunism, anticipation, and excellent striking ability, which enabled him to excel acrobatically in the air, and execute spectacular volleys. In addition to his goalscoring ability as a footballer, he was also known for his dedication, professionalism and his correct behaviour on the pitch,  although, despite his reputation, his career was affected by several injuries.

Coaching career
In June 2010 it was announced that Chiesa was appointed the new head coach of Figline for the 2010–11 season. The experience however lasted a very short time, as Figline was excluded from the Italian leagues in July.

Personal life
Chiesa's son, Federico, is also a footballer who currently plays for Juventus.

Club

 * Source:

International

 * Source:

Club
Sampdoria
 * European Cup Winners' Cup: 1989–90

Parma
 * Coppa Italia: 1998–99
 * UEFA Cup: 1998–99

Fiorentina
 * Coppa Italia: 2000–01
 * Supercoppa Italiana runner-up: 2001

Figline
 * Lega Pro Seconda Divisione: 2008–09
 * Supercoppa di Lega Seconda Divisione: 2008–09

Individual

 * Guerin d'Oro: 1996
 * UEFA Cup Top scorer: 1998–99 (8 goals)

title: Enrico Chiesa