text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Muslims

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious persecution by Muslims
Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article. Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) User:-Ril-

This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a discussion|discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the ones who sponsor the VfD (like Ril and Axon) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. --Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete     07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that this user User:-Ril- actively pushes for a RfC for me. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the above statement is mildly inaccurate. I co-signed an RFC that was also co-signed by a large number of other users disturbed by Germen's editing behaviour. For those that are interested, the RFC is available at Requests for comment/Germen     19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that one of the accusations in aforementioned RfC is the spurious creation of articles, as manifest by the frequent VfD votes on them. These VfD votes originate from users with a known pro-Islam bias, e.g. Irishpunktom, which propably mobilize supporters in order to win the vote. So the VfD accusation can be seen as an example of blaming the victim in the totalitarian tradition. --Germen 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

--Irishpunktom\talk 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think if you change the word "By" (in the title and some of the sub-sections) to the word "OF" this article makes alot more sense. The author seems to be writing in terms of persecution OF Muslims. I read the article and much of its information seems to be covered in the blue links I followed. Perhaps some of this material should be Re-Directed or Merged with the existing material. I think an edit would help this page. A historical record of the persecution of any population certainly warrants notable topic status, and the tone of this one seems largely historical rather than an opinion piece. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There is already a Persecution of Muslims article, this page is yet another opportunity for Germen to spread his anti-muslim propaganda (he's already created numerous pester pages that have all been deleted through lengthy VfD). I see no reason not to cover the same subject matter in the Islam article. Also I'm not sure that religious persecution can be used in this sense: when I hear the term I generally think of people being persecuted for their religion, not people being persecuted because of religion. Axon 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Persecution OF muslims is completely different of persecution BY Muslims. Failing to see this difference is symptomatic for user:Axon. I did cite verifiable sources, so what I wrote cannot be classified as biased anti-Muslim propaganda. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Hamster Sandwich's remarks. Your continued attempts to contradict votes and harrass voters here and on other VfDs are not welcommed. If nothing else but for the sake of your own arguments, please desist. Axon 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Legitimate comments on factual inaccurate statements cannot be classified as harassment. Your continued argumentum ad hominem attacks and logical inaccuracies are not welcomed. --Germen 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).
 * You haven't actually highlighted any "factual inaccuracies" other than mis-reading my remarks. Your continued attempts to shout down opposing votes is not doing you any favors or making people more inclined to vote in your favor. Axon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, responding to remarks is a valid discussion practice and cannot be considered harassment. Thus your remarks are logically inacurate. Note that your continued attempts to shout down opposing voices are not doing you any favours of making people motre inclined to vote in your favour, for as far that matters. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so arguments are more important than votes. --Germen 13:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Persecution of Muslims is not the same as Religious persecution by Muslims. In fact, it is totally different, making yours a moot point. I don't see how you can miss this (or expect anyone to fall for it). Furthermore, I would think that more people were persecuted for not being of a certain religion, than for being of a certain religion, which in my opinion makes this article more relevant than Persecution of Muslims. I am not sure what you're trying to pull here, but I don't like it. --Dv 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? Axon 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please come up with a better response? If not, I will have to assume that you have some sort of agenda which beyond simply making a valid contribution to wikipedia. TIA. --Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote pending result of VFD on Religious Persecution by Jews - This article was created first by Germen, and I, apparently very unwisely, that a "Religious Persecution by..." series to be a good idea. I had planned on including every major World Religion and Atheists (Communists, and perhaps French Revolutionaries, etc).  However all in-all out, and if the jewish one goes I'll nominate Religious persecution by Christians too.
 * Delete. Finally I agree with Irishpunktom on something. The idea of "persecutions by the followers of religion XXX" is unwise. Don't mix fanaticism, ideology, politics, greed, etc. with religion (one's relationship with god).   ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should focus on the religious reasons for persecution others. Hence the title, Religious persecution by Muslims. We try in the article. --Germen 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork by problem user. Dcarrano 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also "problem users" can suggest useful articles. Also, it is not proven I am a problem user. A decision on deletion should be taken by checking the article on its merits (or lack thereof), not by judging by person. --Germen 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Main problem with the precursor of this article was its title. The title has been changed to the more accurate "Religious persecution by Muslims", which is a valid entity. --Germen 12:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Argumentum ad hominem. This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. I am not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: I have added a discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep all viruses of the mind must persecute other viruses in their struggle for existence (unfortunately). Dunc|☺ 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the only virus of the mind is the one that dismisses all other metaphysical belief systems as viral, and rather arrogantly claims a monopoly on truth. christians, muslims, jews, hindus, and atheists have all proven themselves prone to this virus from time to time.  Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep for the same reason I supported keeping the Religious persecution by Jews, by Christians, by atheists, and other articles in what could have been a great series. Unfortunately, the "How dare you speak ill of my people?!" brigades in each community will never let these articles survive. Too bad. Wikipedia can still be a good resource for noncontroversial topics. It's just not mature of enough for sensitive ones. Babajobu 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see why this should not be documented. Dv 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Note, this user has less than 50 edits to his name. Axon 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And? Dv 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOCK. Axon 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have and I am thus far still missing your point. Please elaborate. Dv 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of voting, editors with less than 100/500 (can't remember which) or so edits can be considered sock puppets. This should be referenced in the sock puppets page. Axon 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, I have checked Dv's edits and he does not seem a sock puppet to me, but rather a new user which has contributed to several useful articles, e.g. about programming languages. It is Wikiquette not to bite newcomers. --Germen 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And whose sock-puppet am I? Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, agressive attacks on other users will not favour your case. (sic) --Germen 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? Also: persecution BY muslims does not qualify as a fork of persecution OF Muslims, it is a completely different subject. --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, and I dare someone to claim that there isn't pertinent information for this article's expansion. Shem(talk) 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But it would be nice if the creators of these articles covered that pertinent information from the start.  --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Valid topic but poorly written and obviously incomplete. It covers too little and takes too long to cover it .  On the other hand it is well organized and opens the door to better.  --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have amended my vote as noted above in response to the edits by Hamster Sandwich. The article is now much more focussed and useful.  It still needs a lot more research and work.  However, it is easier for that to be done when the aritcle is present than when it is not.  Also, I for one would like to see Religious persecution by Jews done properly and in keep-able fashion (as is not currently the case, even with my own edits).  A page such as this may help to inspire and guide those who can do a good job with that one. --EMS | Talk 01:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge in Persecution_of_non-Muslims. Also keep other articles in this series. the wub  "?/!"  15:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but with the reservation that we should take a decision that the persecution by... articles should either all stay or all go. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (user has less than 50 edits) Keep Unlike ceratin other articles created by IrishPunkTom as a smokescreen for religious bigotry, this article started out well researched and well sourced, and shows real potential to be a proper and NPOV article dealing with the religious persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim lands and Muslim religious doctrines.Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why the constant Personal Abuse toward me? I've only seen your name on the two VFD's before.  Why is Religious persecution by Jews considered "religious bigotry", yet Religious persecution by Muslims "a proper and NPOV article".  If you know so much about the history of the Jews, can't you help NPOV of the Jewish one? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in any "personal abuse" towards you. I do however, after reading the versions of the other two articles which you created and after reviewing your talk page and your edit history, feel that you have a strong enough bias and that you are not behaving within Wikipedia policy. The two pages you have created are violations of NPOV and WP:POINT as referenced by Jayjg, while this article deals with something that is a very REAL phenomenon today as well as in the past. Existentializer 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I absolutely reject the logic behind this vote. I worked on this article much more than I did on the other "Persecution by..." articles, but there is absolutely no way you can support keeping this one and dismiss the others as "religious bigotry". Either you accept the general concept of articles covering persecution committed by particular religious groups, or you don't. To accept one such article and reject others is, ironically, a pretty clearcut case of "religious bigotry". Babajobu 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I have a feeling that if we delete one and we keep another it will mess up the whole point of the religious persecution series.Heraclius 17:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but I don't really see any true persecution in the article, other than the bit on Iraq in the 1940's. Needs better organization. --Bayyoc 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic POV magnet. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. There is religious persecution by people from all walks of life.  I initially wanted to vote keep, but it's highly unnecessary, IMO.  --Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but only the Koran is replete with verses like 5:51 in the mix. Religious persecution under Islam is a matter of state policy, which begs a significant distinction and is worthy if note and NPOV study.Existentializer 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article is begging for controversy and vandalism. If there were a way to possibly clean this up to deter as much controversy as possible...  I change my vote to abstain.  Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To say that ONLY the Koran makes statements like 5:51 is a generalization and is not accurate. What did Jesus mean when he said "If you are not with me, then you are against me"?  Have you read of the Israelite's campaigns against their neighbors?  Making statements like "only the Koran" suggest that you have some beef against Muslems, thus diluting the arguement to keep the article, which I support as long as it is historically accurate.--Bayyoc 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, the wonderful mistranslation and taking out of context. Try this link with regard to that verse; the Vulgate version is even better but you have to be able to read Latin. And just FYI, the translation of that verse is HEAVILY debated since the same verse in Mark reads the other way: "For whoever is not against us is on our side." On the other hand, the Koran verse stands without question in its own context.Existentializer 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point! This article is a lightning rod for controversy.  If it is to be kept, there surely has to be some way to reduce this factor to avoid silly squabbling like this.  Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. I admit I was too lazy to look the verse up, but my paraphrase isn't that far off and the context seems the same.  The point of both 5:51 and Jesus' statement is that there is only one way to salvation and, frankly, I don't see the problem with 5:51 in that it reserves the punishment of sinners to Allah.  Not one of the three religions is innocent of bloodshed and if you have articles about Christian and Jewish attrocities, then you are obligated to examine Islam as well.  If there ever were Christian, Jewish, or Muslem attrocities against other religions (and there certainly were), you are obligated to to examine them.  The "Persecution by..." series seems legitimate.  If the content of the articles needs cleaned up, then clean them up, but I don't see how you can justify deleting them just because someone might get offended by them.--Bayyoc 19:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons as I gave, for deleting "Religious persecution by Jews." I will jus copypast those reasons here: "The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: "Religious persecution in Israel" could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: "Religious persecution under king David's reign" or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: "Religious persecution under Judaism." While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; "Religious persecution under Islam." This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: "Religious persecutions by Muslims," or even more direct: "Religious persecution by Arabs" (I'm making the comparison, because being a "Jew," is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: "Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes." It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure." Fadix  (My Talk) 20:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote: Keep, but change the name of the article: This article is much more worked around than the other, and a name like: "Religious persecution under Islamic rules" would rightly fit the content of the article. Fadix  (My Talk) 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You say: One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization, but you suggest that Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes would be a valid title, which is inconsistent because the latter title is also a generalisation. You fail to give a reason why such generalisations should be avoided. Obviously, the article with a title like Religious persecution by Muslims does not imply that all muslims persecute all the time, merely that at some point in time group(s) was(were) persecuted by Muslims in a manner which warrants an encyclopedic article. Quite frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make I suspect that there is none. -Dv 20:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I changed my vote, as for your argument, I think I was clear enough in my answer in the other articles vote for deletion. Fadix  (My Talk) 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * keep please Yuckfoo 17:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP I just applied an edit to the article. I hope it provides some clarity and more concise thought than the original. I was initially confused by the title (I thought the article was dealing with issues concerning the persection OF Muslims) but after reading it several times and also the comments here I applied an extensive edit to it. It lacks some information concerning internacine persecution of various Muslim factions. I only hope it might be helpful in deciding the issue. And to illustrate that constructive critisism is usually helpful in expanding the Wikipedia, whereas derision and obfuscation of the issue almost never is. Hamster Sandwich 00:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Volunteers welcomed. --Germen 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * weak Keep per my vote in Persecution by Jews. Together with DJ Clayworth, I agree that these should all stay or all go.  Until policy is sorted out, I default to keeping all articles in this series. Xoloz 03:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Revolución 04:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Revolucion has voted "delete" on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews; on the other hand, he has eagerly promised to expand the Religious persecution by Christians article. I agree that the latter could have been a great article and should have been expanded, but I question the motivation of a bourgeois playtime "revolutionary" who thinks only one religious group can commit religious persecution. I would discount this vote as bad faith. Babajobu 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: YOU MAY NOT DISCOUNT A VOTE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE WHAT YOU THINK THE VOTERS REASONS TO BE.     19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: A vote without a stated reason is not valid as per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Germen 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Historically relevant. --malathion talk 11:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are  already POV OR disasters.  WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones.  Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group.  Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities.  If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month.  Tomer TALK  16:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 16:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why not just have the article religious intolerance than religious persecution by X. Note that this article is the most extensive of the series, the series being created to allow this article's existence, and to go "oh, look, its the muslims who are the worst", by having the islamic-related article the largest.     19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, that should be the final solution. Just one article with an overview section (dedicated to general forms of intolerance: the "how's") and then specialised historical sections on "intolerance by whom, where and when". However this requires putting together historical knowledge from widely different fields. So the practical idea is perhaps first to develop the articles separately and then (when some balance is reached) to merge them: --Mario

21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and encyclopedic topic. See also Jizya. Klonimus 23:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. -- M P er el ( talk 00:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. VFD votes are usually based on the article's potential, not its current state. -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I don't think this article (or the other 2) has much potential, as the title alone assumes Muslims (or Jews or Christians) are monolithic in their (mis)behavior. Much of the persecutions that have happened are not even necessarily related to religion, nor to all adherents of the religion en masse.  I also believe much of the content in all three of these articles is already addressed (or should be addressed) elsewhere in Wikipedia in more specific and balanced contexts. -- M P er el ( talk 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 talk 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. How can historical fact be POV? -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The historical fact itself is not POV, it's the way it's framed. Articles titled "religious persecution *of* (fill in group here)" are okay, but "religious persecution *by* (fill in group here)" carries an implicit implication that Muslims, Jews, or Christians as a whole are responsible for persecution (as opposed to individuals who may also happen to be Muslims, Jews, or Christians), or that there is something systemic in the religions that leads to them persecuting others.  That's implicitly promoting a POV against all three religions.  Kaibabsquirrel 23:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almafeta 02:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time.  In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis.  But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once.  This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page.  Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true.  Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
 * Delete crazyeddie 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Blank Verse   ∅  11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Incognito 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletethis and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article can be written EdwinHJ | Talk 17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * # REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsalvageable POV magnet. - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ...together with Religious persecution by Christians and Religious persecution by Jews, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment.  But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If the "Persecution by" series gets deleted, so should the "Persecution of" series. The first series is the necessary counterbalance to the second. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic because it provides an opportunity to address issues specific to persecution by muslims.  amazing how ad hominem wikipedians get in their vfd's.  there should be a rule.  Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is becoming ridiculous. LokiCT 22:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 's 14th edit, made 36 minutes after his/her first edit. Voted "Keep" on VfD for Religious persecution by Jews. HKT talk 23:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles.--DNicholls 02:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete *Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV (as Mustafaa said), but that is not the only reason to delete.  The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole?  Is all of history covered?  Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims?  Are the July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks persecution by radical Islamists against non-Muslims? The articles do not have a clear definition, and are likely to be POV disasters that are not informative.  --Goodoldpolonius2 02:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we must concentrate on the reasons of persecution. If this reasons are religious, so is the persecution. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 14:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * German, how do we know whether the reasons are religious? How would you define the examples above?  In one case it was a group of Christians slaughtering Jews for the crime of being Jews, but it was not explicitly religiously motivated.  In the next case, it was a lone crazy Jew who killed Muslims because of their religion, but did not represent a wider religious group.  In the final case, Islamists were attacking others for religious reasons, but it is not clear whether the attack was persecution or not.  The issue is that these articles seem destined to turn into a dumping ground for a list of everything that anyone of that religious affiliation has ever done wrong.  Until someone defines the article series better, and what religious persecution is (as opposed to nationalist persecution, etc.), I would strongly urge to delete.  --Goodoldpolonius2 05:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * GoodOldPolonius, I think it is not so difficult to find that out. If the perpetrators of persecution cite religious sources and religious reasons and those reasons are supported by theological evidence, we safely can assume it is religious persecution. Exactly because of that reason I added a section "Theological justification for/against persecution" in order to make this clear. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 07:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That begs the question - lots of people appeal to religious motives, others do not cite religious reasons, but their actions are clearly religiously motivated. And what "religious persection" is remains anyone's guess.  A good way to start would be for you to catagorize the three examples I gave as religious persecution or not.  --Goodoldpolonius2 04:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Difficult indeed, Goodoldpolonius. Because people consider a religion to be their supreme frame of reference, it would be more logical for someone to attribute non-religious violence to religion than the opposite (unless it is all part of a propaganda war, in which it would be opposite in order to prevent defamation of the own religion). It is quite impossible to look into the perpetrators brain, so we have just their words and actions available as a reference. And the validity of the religious motives they gave.
 * As per your three examples-

 * Christians killing a Jew for being a Jew per se are not acting per religious reasons, as there are no reasons in the Bible to kill Jews, except for the supposed responsability of the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. This, however, contradicts the Christian dogma that Jesus died for all sins, including the sins of the Jewish perpetrators and the fact that according to the canonical Gospels Jesus asked for forgiveness for the ones who persecuted him. It can be cited as a (misguided) religious motivation, however.
 * The lone Jew who kills Muslims because of their religion can act because of religious reasons or not, I do not know enough about Talmud and other contemporary Jewish writings. The Tenach does not mention Islam, so cannot be used as a source for anti-Muslim violence. Only when Muslims are considered to be enemies of the people of Israel (as some right-wing Zionist groups do) there exists a religious reason for killing them as far as I understand Judaism.
 * The Sharm el-Sheikh attacks are partially motivated by religious reasons because of the suicide bomber element. A secular terrorist will attribute more value to hios life and will not expect a reward by God for his act (thus will choose another method of terrorism, like remote-control), while a religiously miotivated terrorist will and therefore prefers suicide as a sure means for achieving Paradise. There are some theories, however, that the harsh treatment by the Mukhabarat of Sinai Bedouins has motivated the killers. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 09:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Now you have me truly baffled (leaving aside the Jews killed Jesus bit which seems to be in your first response). Christian persecutions of a group is not religious persecutions unless the source documents of Christianity demand that that group be persecuted?  So attacks on witches are religious persecution because of the commandment against witches, but the Spanish Inquisition and blood libels are not, because there is no commandment to persecute Jews?  I am not even sure what your definition is, but it seems to require at the very least knowing the motivation of the persecution (which is often unclear) and a universal interpretation of each religion (which is not possible).  Motivations for persecutions against other religions are usually multicausal, so how would you decide what is religiously motivated and what is not? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, you summarize it well. Note, however, that everything which violates the Highest Commandment as per Jesus, is in violation of Christian teachings. So persecuting witches is wrong, but Christianity commands them to be banned from a church or other religious group of Christians. However, agreed to some extent: religiously motivated persecution can still be a violation of the teachings of that religion. The persecution then results from a twisted interpretation of the religion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Re Witches, the First Synod of Patrick pronounced excommunication on any who would persecute a Witch (they also declared witches harmless) see Celtic Christianity --ClemMcGann 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, this I didn't know. Thanks! --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * German - so I can get this right: the Spanish Inquisition, burnings for false Host desecration charges, and Blood libel are not religious persections by Christians? This definitely seems like a Catch-22, if Christians persecute anyone then they are not behaving like Christians, and therefore there is no Christian persection. What would qualify in your point of view?  And how do you privellage one interpretation or another? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The persecutions of Jews because of the host libel are indeed persecutions and they were committed by Roman-Catholic Christians. It seems like a kind of cooked-up story to motivate antisemitism. It can be mentioned in the Persecution by Christians article I guess. The blood libel is I think old plain antisemitism. This myth surfaces at many places, most recently in Saudi Arabia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Move or merge this isn't about religious persecution by Muslims as about Muslim attitudes to other groups. See my comments in Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. --jnothman talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so. I described Muhammad's actions towards non-Muslims because they are the theological basis vor Islam's attitude towards non-Muslims, hence essential for u8nderstanding  religious persecution by Muslims.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But then, as you say, the purpose for giving this information is to explore their attitude, and not their persecution as such. This whole collection of articles should be exploring the attitudes of x to non-x's, and only looking at their acts of persecution in this context, because the acts of persecution cannot fairly be ascribed to the religious (or anti-religious) movement as a whole! But their attitudes can be discussed fairly. --jnothman talk 04:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * JNothman, note that the title of this page is "religious persecution by Muslims". So it is confined as per this title to clearly religiously motivated persecution, all other persecution is excluded. Exactly for the reasons you stated :) --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these.  The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great.  Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages.  AndyCapp 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per MPerel and Mustafaa, along with the rest of the ill-advised series.Palmiro 19:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, controversial, but important series Salsb 00:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is an important part of a coherent series of articles on religious persecution. --Zeno of Elea 14:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - we all have an 'edit button'--ClemMcGann 08:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Mu'tazilites, or by early Hanafis or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said it's a POV magnet and there is no persecution by Muslims as a whole entity, but different groups and schools of thought have persecuted different things, there is no doubt in that. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Muslim groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable because at that level this can be dealt with in a way that is sane and not blanketing saying Qur'an quotes for and against persecution.  Because, it is obvious that different groups have interpretted those verses differently. gren 16:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Gren, according to what you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion between Muslims themselves whether persecution is allowed or not and which incarnations of persecution are allowed or recommended. So, exposing the reasons why Muslims persecute others and what is the textual evidence which allows or contradicts persecution seems to be of encyclopedic interest. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no Islamic ruling on persecution different Muslims have interpretted it in different ways. Also it is impossible to tell teh difference between political / power / and religious motivations.  While I have no problem reporting what motivations can be cited for a Muslim group's persecution of another I think that what you want is exactly why this article should not stand as it does now.  There is no answer that will give you the magical key to why some Muslims do what they do.  And citing the Qur'an without references because an editor feels they justify persecution is original research... and that is precisely what is to be avoided. gren 16:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Gren, exacty for that reason I have added the Theological reasons section, in ortderr to differentiate. OK, if you think sources are lacking, then sources should be added. There are many articles which lack sources. Do you think all those articles should go? --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is created for anti-Islam agenda. --Vsion 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. (Dv)
 * Then how come, the article is not listed as POV? Persecution of Muslims can be claimed likewise to promote a pro-Islam agenda, but has been retained anyhow. I think this two articles will counterbalance each other and provide Muslims and non-Muslims alike with reliable information, thus reducing misunderstandings. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For proof of anti-Islam agenda, see . You have confessed to it yourself. There's really nothing more to say. -- Vsion 09:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't prove that this article has an anti-Islam agenda. It proves that it is his opinion that the world would be better off without Islam. There's no rule that one has to be indifferent to the issue as long as one is NPOV. Indeed, how would Nazism have been written if that were true? (Dv)
 * At the same article you can read why I believe a NPOV is sufficient to state my point, because I have objective reasons for this belief. If you think the Religious Persecution by Muslims article is biased, feel free to remove the bias and correct factual inaccuracies, but cite your sources. Censorship of free speech and preferring "respect" above facts is not a desired encyclopedic approach. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha... aren't you now giving yourself away for using sock puppets for double voting? :D --Vsion 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You better not be implying that I'm a sock-puppet or I shall be very angry
 * Dv, are you saying you are not a sock-puppet of Germen? -- Vsion 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Vsion and welcome to en.wikipedia where a basic proficiency with the English language is assumed. Reasoning skills are optional, and often frowned upon, however.
 * I don't know what Dv means but I am a different person (i.e. physical human entity, so clear?) than he is. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a clone of user:Dv but a separate user, if that is your point. It is not necessary to employ this kind of tactics to prove my point. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm amused by your "tactics", and the attempt of "minor insult" through a proxy (which is pathetic, btw) :D Vsion 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How would you like this proxy to punch you in the face? Btw I'm glad you quit using bold to add dramatic effect to your comments.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
John Carradine filmography

This is a list of John Carradine's hundreds of theatrical films. Television appearances and television movies are not included.

1930s

 * 1) Bright Lights (1930) as Telegraph Newspaper Photographer (uncredited)
 * 2) Tol'able David (1930) as Buzzard Hatburn (as Peter Richmond)
 * 3) Heaven on Earth (1931) as Chicken Sam (as Peter Richmond)
 * 4) Forgotten Commandments (1932) as First Orator (uncredited)
 * 5) The Sign of the Cross (1932) as Christian Martyr / Gladiator Leader / Voice in Coliseum Mob / Voice of Roman (uncredited)
 * 6) Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) (uncredited)
 * 7) The Story of Temple Drake (1933) as Courtroom Spectator (uncredited)
 * 8) Morning Glory (1933) as Dream Apparition (uncredited)
 * 9) This Day and Age (1933) as Assistant Principal Abernathy
 * 10) To the Last Man (1933) as Pete Garon (uncredited)
 * 11) The Invisible Man (1933) as Informer Suggesting Ink (uncredited)
 * 12) The Meanest Gal in Town (1934) as Stranded Actor (uncredited)
 * 13) The Black Cat (1934) as Cult Organist (uncredited)
 * 14) Cleopatra (1934) as Roman Citizen / Party Guest / Soldier (voice, uncredited)
 * 15) Clive of India (1935) as Drunken-Faced Clerk (uncredited)
 * 16) Transient Lady (1935) as Ren Baxter (uncredited)
 * 17) Les Misérables (1935) as Enjolras
 * 18) Cardinal Richelieu (1935) as Agitator
 * 19) Bride of Frankenstein (1935) as Hunter at Hermit's Cottage (uncredited)
 * 20) Alias Mary Dow (1935) as Griffe - Nightclub Drunk (uncredited)
 * 21) She Gets Her Man (1935) as Lunchroom customer (uncredited)
 * 22) The Crusades (1935) as Leopold - Duke of Austria / A French King / A Wise Man (uncredited)
 * 23) Bad Boy (1935) as Angry Saxophone Player - Tenant (uncredited)
 * 24) The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo (1935) as Despondent Casino Gambler (uncredited)
 * 25) Dublin in Brass (1935) (uncredited)
 * 26) Anything Goes (1936) as Bearded Ballet Master (uncredited)
 * 27) The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936) as Sgt. Rankin
 * 28) A Message to Garcia (1936) as President William McKinley (voice, uncredited)
 * 29) Under Two Flags (1936) as Cafard
 * 30) Half Angel (1936) as Sanatorium Inmate (voice, uncredited)
 * 31) White Fang (1936) as Beauty Smith
 * 32) Mary of Scotland (1936) as David Rizzio
 * 33) Ramona (1936) as Jim Farrar
 * 34) Dimples (1936) as Richards
 * 35) The Garden of Allah (1936) as Sand Diviner
 * 36) Daniel Boone (1936) as Simon Girty
 * 37) Winterset (1936) as Bartolomio Romagna
 * 38) Laughing at Trouble (1936) as Deputy Sheriff Alec Brady
 * 39) Nancy Steele Is Missing! (1937) as Harry Wilkins
 * 40) Captains Courageous (1937) as 'Long Jack'
 * 41) This Is My Affair (1937) as Ed
 * 42) Love Under Fire (1937) as Capt. Delmar
 * 43) Danger - Love at Work (1937) as Herbert Pemberton
 * 44) Ali Baba Goes to Town (1937) as Ishak / Broderick
 * 45) The Hurricane (1937) as Warden
 * 46) The Last Gangster (1937) as Casper
 * 47) Thank You, Mr. Moto (1937) as Pereira
 * 48) International Settlement (1938) as Murdock
 * 49) Of Human Hearts (1938) as President Lincoln
 * 50) Four Men and a Prayer (1938) as General Adolfo Arturios Gregario Sebastian
 * 51) Kentucky Moonshine (1938) as Reef Hatfield
 * 52) Alexander's Ragtime Band (1938) as Taxi Driver
 * 53) Kidnapped (1938) as Gordon
 * 54) I'll Give a Million (1938) as Kopelpeck
 * 55) Gateway (1938) as Leader of Refugees
 * 56) Submarine Patrol (1938) as McAllison
 * 57) Jesse James (1939) as Bob Ford
 * 58) Mr. Moto's Last Warning (1939) as Danforth / Richard Burke
 * 59) Stagecoach (1939) as Hatfield
 * 60) The Three Musketeers (1939) as Naveau
 * 61) The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939) as Barryman
 * 62) Captain Fury (1939) as Coughy / Roger Bradford
 * 63) Five Came Back (1939) as Crimp
 * 64) Frontier Marshal (1939) as Ben Carter
 * 65) Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) as Caldwell

1940s

 * 1) The Grapes of Wrath (1940) as Jim Casy
 * 2) The Return of Frank James (1940) as Bob Ford
 * 3) Brigham Young (1940) as Porter Rockwell
 * 4) Chad Hanna (1940) as B.D. Bisbee
 * 5) Western Union (1941) as Doc Murdoch
 * 6) Blood and Sand (1941) as El Nacional
 * 7) Man Hunt (1941) as Mr. Jones
 * 8) Swamp Water (1941) as Jesse Wick
 * 9) Son of Fury: The Story of Benjamin Blake (1942) as Caleb Green
 * 10) Whispering Ghosts (1942) as Norbert (Long Jack)
 * 11) Northwest Rangers (1942) as Martin Caswell
 * 12) Reunion in France (1942) as Ulrich Windler
 * 13) I Escaped from the Gestapo (1943) as Martin - Gestapo Agent
 * 14) Captive Wild Woman (1943) as Dr. Sigmund Walters
 * 15) Hitler's Madman (1943) as Reinhardt Heydrich
 * 16) Silver Spurs (1943) as Lucky Miller
 * 17) Isle of Forgotten Sins (1943) (a.k.a. Monsoon) as Mike Clancy
 * 18) Revenge of the Zombies (1943) as Dr. Max Heinrich Von Altermann
 * 19) Gangway for Tomorrow (1943) as Mr. Wellington
 * 20) Voodoo Man (1944) as Toby
 * 21) The Adventures of Mark Twain (1944) as Bret Harte
 * 22) The Black Parachute (1944) as General von Bodenbach
 * 23) The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) as Doctor Peter Drury
 * 24) Waterfront (1944) as Victor Marlow
 * 25) The Mummy's Ghost (1944) as Yousef Bey
 * 26) Return of the Ape Man (1944) as Prof. John Gilmore
 * 27) Barbary Coast Gent (1944) as Duke Cleat
 * 28) Bluebeard (1944) as Gaston Morel
 * 29) Alaska (1944) as John Reagan
 * 30) House of Frankenstein (1944) as Count Dracula / Baron Latos
 * 31) It's in the Bag! (1945) as Jefferson T. Pike
 * 32) Fallen Angel (1945) as Professor Madley
 * 33) Captain Kidd (1945) as Orange Povy
 * 34) House of Dracula (1945) as Count Dracula / Baron Latos
 * 35) The Face of Marble (1946) as Dr. Charles Randolph
 * 36) Down Missouri Way (1946) as Thorndyke 'Thorny' P. Dunning
 * 37) The Private Affairs of Bel Ami (1947) as Charles Forestier
 * 38) C-Man (1949) as Doc Spencer

1950s

 * 1) Casanova's Big Night (1954) as Minister Foressi
 * 2) Johnny Guitar (1954) as Old Tom
 * 3) The Egyptian (1954) as Grave Robber
 * 4) Thunder Pass (1954) as Bergstrom
 * 5) Female Jungle (1955) as Claude Almstead
 * 6) Stranger on Horseback (1955) as Col. Buck Streeter
 * 7) The Kentuckian (1955) as Ziby Fletcher
 * 8) Desert Sands (1955) as Jala the Wine Merchant
 * 9) The Court Jester (1956) as Giacomo
 * 10) Dark Venture (1956) as Gideon
 * 11) Hidden Guns (1956) as Snipe Harding
 * 12) The Black Sleep (1956) as Borg aka Bohemond
 * 13) The Ten Commandments (1956) as Aaron
 * 14) Around the World in 80 Days (1956) as Col. Stamp Proctor - San Francisco Politico
 * 15) The True Story of Jesse James (1957) as Rev. Jethro Bailey
 * 16) The Unearthly (1957) as Dr. Charles Conway
 * 17) The Story of Mankind (1957) as Khufu
 * 18) Hell Ship Mutiny (1957) as Malone
 * 19) The Incredible Petrified World (1957) as Prof. Millard Wyman
 * 20) Showdown at Boot Hill (1958) as Doc Weber
 * 21) The Proud Rebel (1958) as Traveling Salesman
 * 22) The Last Hurrah (1958) as Amos Force
 * 23) Half Human: The Story of the Abominable Snowman (1958) as Dr. John Rayburn - Narrator (English version only)
 * 24) The Cosmic Man (1959) as Cosmic Man
 * 25) Invisible Invaders (1959) as Dr. Karol Noymann
 * 26) Invasion of the Animal People (1959) as Voice of Narrator (English version only)
 * 27) The Oregon Trail (1959) as Zachariah Garrison

1960s

 * 1) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1960) as Slave Catcher
 * 2) Tarzan the Magnificent (1960) as Abel Banton
 * 3) Sex Kittens Go to College (1960) as Prof. Watts
 * 4) The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) as Maj. Cassius Starbuckle
 * 5) The Patsy (1964) as Bruce Alden
 * 6) Cheyenne Autumn (1964) as Jeff Blair
 * 7) Genesis (1964) as Narrator
 * 8) Curse of the Stone Hand (1964) as The Old Drunk
 * 9) The Wizard of Mars (1965) as The Wizard of Mars
 * 10) Psycho A-Go-Go (1965) as Dr. Vanard
 * 11) House of the Black Death (1965) as Andre Desard
 * 12) Broken Sabre (1965-1966) as General Joshua McCord
 * 13) The Emperor's New Clothes (1966) as King Luvimself
 * 14) Billy the Kid Versus Dracula (1966) as a nameless vampire, posing as James Underhill
 * 15) Munster, Go Home! (1966) as Cruikshank
 * 16) Red Zone Cuba (1966) as Mr. Wilson
 * 17) The Fiend with the Electronic Brain (1966) as Dr. Howard Vanard
 * 18) The Green Hornet (1966-1967) as James Rancourt / The Scarf
 * 19) Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horrors (1967) as Narrator / Tristram Halbin
 * 20) Hillbillys in a Haunted House (1967) as Dr. Himmil
 * 21) The Hostage (1967) as Otis Lovelace
 * 22) Antologia del miedo (1968) (short)
 * 23) The Helicopter Spies (1968) as Third-Way Priest
 * 24) They Ran for Their Lives (1968) as Laslo
 * 25) The Astro-Zombies (1968) as Dr. DeMarco
 * 26) Autopsia de un fantasma (1968) (a.k.a. Autopsy of a Ghost) as Satán
 * 27) Pacto diabólico (1969) (a.k.a. Diabolical Pact) as Dr. Halback
 * 28) The Trouble with Girls (1969) as Mr. Drewcolt
 * 29) Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969) as George - the butler
 * 30) Las Vampiras (1969) (a.k.a. The Vampires) as Count Branos Alucard
 * 31) The Good Guys and the Bad Guys (1969) as Ticker
 * 32) Five Bloody Graves (1969) as Boone Hawkins
 * 33) Enigma de muerte (1969) as Mad Doctor / Nazi Leader
 * 34) La Señora Muerte (1969) (a.k.a. Madame Death) as Dr. Favel
 * 35) The Mummy and the Curse of the Jackals (1969) as Prof. Cummings

1970s

 * 1) Hell's Bloody Devils (1970) (a.k.a. The Fakers (TV title)) as Pet Shop Owner
 * 2) Cain's Cutthroats (1970) as Preacher Simms
 * 3) Horror of the Blood Monsters (1970) (a.k.a. Creatures of the Prehistoric Planet, Creatures of the Red Planet, Space Mission to the Lost Planet, Vampire Men of the Lost Planet) as Dr. Rynning
 * 4) Blood of the Iron Maiden (1970) (a.k.a. Trip to Terror (reissue title)) as Dr. Goolie
 * 5) Myra Breckinridge (1970) as Surgeon
 * 6) Shinbone Alley (1970) as Tyrone T. Tattersall (voice)
 * 7) The McMasters (1970) as Preacher
 * 8) Bigfoot (1970) as Jasper B. Hawks
 * 9) Honey Britches (1971) as The Judge of Hell (uncredited)
 * 10) Blood Legacy (1971) (a.k.a. Legacy of Blood) as Christopher Dean
 * 11) Beast of the Yellow Night (1971)
 * 12) The Gatling Gun (1971) as Rev. Harper
 * 13) The Seven Minutes (1971) as Sean O'Flanagan
 * 14) Boxcar Bertha (1972) as H. Buckram Sartoris
 * 15) Portnoy's Complaint (1972) as Judge (voice, uncredited)
 * 16) Richard (1972) as Plastic Surgeon
 * 17) Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) (1972) as Doctor Bernardo
 * 18) Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972) as Charlie Towman
 * 19) Blood of Ghastly Horror (1972) as Dr. Howard Vanard
 * 20) Terror in the Wax Museum (1973) as Claude Dupree
 * 21) Bad Charleston Charlie (1973) as Fritz Frugal - Reporter
 * 22) Superchick (1973) as Igor Smith
 * 23) The Cat Creature (1973) as Hotel Clerk
 * 24) Shadow House (1973) as Uncle
 * 25) The House of Seven Corpses (1974) as Edgar Price
 * 26) Moonchild (1974) as Mr. Walker
 * 27) Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary (1975) as The Man
 * 28) Won Ton Ton, the Dog Who Saved Hollywood (1976) as Drunk
 * 29) The Shootist (1976) as Beckum
 * 30) The Killer Inside Me (1976) as Dr. Jason Smith
 * 31) The Last Tycoon (1976) as Tour Guide
 * 32) Crash! (1977) as Dr. Welsey Edwards
 * 33) The Sentinel (1977) as Father Halliran
 * 34) The White Buffalo (1977) as Amos Briggs (Undertaker)
 * 35) Satan's Cheerleaders (1977) as The Bum
 * 36) The Mouse and His Child (1977) as The Tramp (voice)
 * 37) Shock Waves (1977) as Captain Ben Morris
 * 38) Golden Rendezvous (1977) (a.k.a. Nuclear Terror) as Fairweather
 * 39) Christmas Miracle in Caufield, U.S.A. (1977) as Grampa Sullivan
 * 40) The Lady and the Lynchings (1977)
 * 41) Doctor Dracula (1978) (a.k.a. Svengali) as Hadley Radcliff
 * 42) Sunset Cove (1978/I) as Judge Harley Winslow
 * 43) Vampire Hookers (1978) as Richmond Reed
 * 44) The Bees (1978) as Dr. Sigmund Hummel
 * 45) The Seekers (1979) as Avery Mills
 * 46) Missile X: The Neutron Bomb Incident (1978) (a.k.a. Teheran Incident and Cruise Missile) as Professor Nikolaeff
 * 47) Nocturna: Granddaughter of Dracula (1979) as Count Dracula

1980s

 * 1) Monster (1980) (a.k.a. Monstroid and The Toxic Horror) as The Priest
 * 2) The Boogeyman (1980) as Dr. Warren
 * 3) The Howling (1981) as Erle Kenton
 * 4) The Monster Club (1981) as Ronald Chetwynd-Hayes
 * 5) The Nesting (1981) (a.k.a. Massacre Mansion) as Col. LeBrun
 * 6) Goliath Awaits (1981) as Ronald Bentley
 * 7) Frankenstein Island (1981) as Dr. Frankenstein
 * 8) Aladdin and the Magic Lamp (1982) as The Wizard (voice)
 * 9) The Scarecrow (1982) as Hubert Salter
 * 10) Satan's Mistress (1982) as Father Stratten
 * 11) The Secret of NIMH (1982) as the Great Owl (voice)
 * 12) The Vals (1982) (a.k.a. Valley Girls) as Mr. Stanton - Head of the Orphanage
 * 13) House of the Long Shadows (1983) as Lord Elijah Grisbane
 * 14) Rose for Emily (1983) as Col. Sartoris
 * 15) The Ice Pirates (1984) as Supreme Commander
 * 16) Evils of the Night (1985) as Dr. Kozmar
 * 17) Prison Ship (1986) (a.k.a. Star Slammer) as The Justice
 * 18) Revenge (1986) (direct to video) (a.k.a. Revenge: Blood Cult 2) as Sen. Martin Bradford
 * 19) The Tomb (1986) as Mr. Andoheb
 * 20) Monster in the Closet (1986) as Old Joe Shempter
 * 21) Peggy Sue Got Married (1986) as Leo
 * 22) Evil Spawn (1987) as Dr. Emil Zeitman

1990s (Posthumous)

 * 1) Buried Alive (filmed in 1988; released in 1990) as Jacob Julian
 * 2) Jack-O (filmed in 1988; released in 1995) as Walter Machen (final film role)

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

title: John Carradine filmography


text: Category:Advertising stubs

title: Category:Advertising stubs


text:
Radviliškis

Radviliškis (Radwilischken; Radziwiliszki; ראדווילישאָק, Radvilishok) is a city in the Radviliškis district municipality, Šiauliai County, Lithuania. Radviliškis has been the administrative center of the district since 1950, and is an important railway junction.

History
Radviliškis was founded at the end of the 15th century. It was first mentioned in the book on state economics by M. Downar-Zapolsky listing the cities taxpayers in 1567. In 1687, John Sobieski, the king of Lithuania and Poland, granted the right of holding a market to it.

Radviliškis was devastated many times by military forces, plague and hunger in the 17th–19th centuries. There were no citizens left in Radviliškis after the plague in 1708–1710.

City growth began when the Liepāja–Romny Railway line, crossing the city, was built in 1870 and Radviliškis–Daugavpils line was built in 1873. Railwaymen constituted the majority of the residents.

Around July 12, 1941, all 300 Jews of Radviliškis were murdered in the Durpunas Forest near the Jewish cemetery by Germans and Lithuanian Activist Front members from Radviliškis.

In 1998, a sculpture of the Victory goddess Nike was unveiled in the center of Radviliškis to commemorate the eightieth anniversary of the victory over the united German–Russian West Russian Volunteer Army. It was created by sculptor P. Mazuras.

Name and coat of arms
Supposedly, the name originated from the name of the noble Radziwiłł  (Radvila) family of Lithuanian origin. This family ruled Radviliškis for more than 200 years, from 1546 to 1764.

A rising and light-emitting horse, representing communication, motion, city development and flourishing, is depicted in the coat of arms of Radviliškis. The light is a symbol of civilization's role in the city development. It was created by artist Laima Ramonienė in 1992.

Attractions
Radviliškis, settled on everglades, was famous for its railway and black-from-locomotive-smoke sparrows.

The two symbols of the city are the railways, and black swallows.

There are Evangelical-reformed, Protestant, Lutheran, and Orthodox chapels, Jewish synagogues and Catholic Churches in Radviliškis.

The stone windmill of Radviliškis was erected in remembrance of the violent and triumphant battles in 1919 against the German–Russian armed forces(Bermontians).

The wooden belfry of Radviliškis parish's Blessed Virgin Mary church of the Immaculate Conception is a topical architecture monument. It was set in 1878. The belfry burned twice. It was reconstructed in 1984.

Twin towns – sister cities
Radviliškis is twinned with:

 * 🇱🇻 Bauska, Latvia
 * 🇮🇱 Daliyat al-Karmel, Israel
 * 🇵🇱 Gniezno, Poland
 * 🇵🇱 Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland
 * 🇵🇱 Kadzidło, Poland
 * Khashuri, Georgia
 * 🇳🇴 Lillehammer, Norway
 * 🇫🇷 Saint-Seine-l'Abbaye, France
 * 🇸🇪 Skara, Sweden
 * 🇺🇦 Uman, Ukraine

title: Radviliškis


text:
EFA (mobile bridge)

The EFA or Engin de Franchissement de l'Avant (forward crossing apparatus) is a field-deployable river crossing vehicle, used by combat engineers in the French Army. Unlike a bridge layer, which transports a bridge that is deployed off of the host vehicle, the EFA itself is a combined pontoon bridge and amphibious vehicle, enabling much more rapid redeployment of the mobile bridge structure and an additional use as a ferry (at the cost of being useless in returning to service damaged bridges). When needed, multiple EFA's can be combined in a series to create a traditional pontoon bridge. It has been built since 1989 by Chaudronnerie et Forges d'Alsace (CEFA), located in Soultz-sous-Forêts in the Bas-Rhin.

Characteristics
A single EFA, in ferry configuration, has a length of 34.55m on a loading surface of 96 m2 is ready in less than five minutes for the transportation of up to 70 tons of goods. In one hour it is able to make about 10-12 crossings over a of 100 m length and eight to 10 crossings over a length of 200 m. Two EFA coupled together at the ramp allow the carriage of up to 150 ton cargo, and a floating bridge with four EFA for example offers, in less than 10 minutes, a crossing capacity of 100 m long with an estimated flow of 200 vehicles an hour.

The EFA is capable of astern propulsion, thus allowing fording without having to reorient the direction of the vehicle to the opposite shore which allows for more fluid ferry operations and rapid bridge assembly.

The crew consists of four people:

 * An equipment commander
 * A driver
 * A pilot
 * A crewman

Predecessor
The EFA is the heir to the first self-propelled bridging ferry invented in 1955 by the French military engineer and general Jean Gillois (born in Châteaubriant 1909). Called the "Amphibious Bac" or "Gillois", it entered service with the French army in 1963. A version modified by EWK was successively adopted by the German, British and to a limited extent American militaries, and was used by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. At the time of its introduction it was able to carry vehicles up to a maximum weight of 25 tons and while configured as a bridge it could support loads of about 50 tons. It takes between 45 and 65 minutes to form a bridge 100 meters long. It allows an armed force to avoid the heavy and bulky convoys that barges brought in by road, which are sensitive to enemy attacks.

Users

 * : Contract for 10 units of more than 60 million euros signed in 2006 for EFA X1 motorized with Friedrichshafen MTU of 760 hp. Delivery from September 2008
 * 🇫🇷: 39 units built for the French army since 1989, in active service since 1993. As of December 31, 2013, 30 units were in service with an average age of 25 years. They are assigned to the following units:
 * 3rd engineer regiment,
 * 6th engineer regiment,
 * 19th engineer regiment,
 * School of Engineering,
 * Champagne Training Park.

The three EFA sections are theoretically equipped with four groups of two vehicles, i.e. eight EFA per regiment. In practice, by 2014 it would seem that there were only four AETs per regiment, the rest being distributed between the Engineering School, the Training Park and the industrial owner of the conditioning contract.

title: EFA (mobile bridge)


text:
San Francisco Chief

The San Francisco Chief was a streamlined passenger train on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway ("Santa Fe") between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran from 1954 until 1971. The San Francisco Chief was the last new streamliner introduced by the Santa Fe, its first full train between Chicago and the Bay, the only Chicago–Bay Area train running over just one railroad, and at 2555 mi the longest run in the country on one railroad. The San Francisco Chief was one of many trains discontinued when Amtrak began operations in 1971.

History
The Santa Fe introduced the streamliner on June 6, 1954; it was Santa Fe's last new streamliner and its first direct train from Chicago to the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran via Topeka and the Belen Cutoff through Amarillo, Texas, instead of Raton Pass. Like other Santa Fe trains it ran to the Oakland, California, depot in Emeryville (cut back to Richmond, California, after 1958), with a bus connection across the bay to San Francisco, California. At first the San Francisco Chief handled through cars for cities in Texas, plus a New Orleans, Louisiana, sleeper conveyed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad in Houston, Texas. The San Francisco Chief carried the numbers 1 (westbound) and 2 (eastbound) and was the only Chicago–San Francisco train to make the entire journey on one railroad.

At the train's inauguration Taptuka, a Hopi chief led the ceremony. The train used a mix of old and new lightweight cars, including full-length dome cars (called "Big Domes") built by the Budd Company. There were improved reclining chairs in the coaches, "classic and popular music...on individual, push-button type receivers," and bar service on the upper level of the dome car via a dumb waiter.

Tragedy struck the train on March 2, 1960, just outside of Bakersfield, California, when a tanker truck filled with oil stalled or got stuck on a crossing along the Chief's route. The engineer hardly had time to slow down, and collided with the truck, resulting in an explosion that could be seen, heard and even felt over a great distance. 17 people were killed and around 60 were injured.

The San Francisco Chief was one of few Santa Fe trains to survive the purge in 1967–1968, as dozens of trains were discontinued. The discontinuances were prompted in large part by the cancellation of railway post office contracts in 1967. Another survivor, the Grand Canyon, provided through service to Los Angeles at Barstow, California. Amtrak chose the route of California Zephyr for Chicago–San Francisco service, and the San Francisco Chief made its last run on April 30, 1971.

The discontinuance of the San Francisco Chief was the end of passenger service on the Belen Cutoff. Since 1971 there have been periodic discussions between Amtrak and the owners of that route (Santa Fe, then BNSF Railway) about re-routing the Super Chief, now the Southwest Chief, off the Raton Pass and on the cutoff. However, moving the train from its current route would deprive passengers of service at the Albuquerque and Santa Fe-Lamy stops.

Equipment

The San Francisco Chief was one of several Santa Fe trains to receive the new full-length "Big Dome" dome cars from the Budd Company. The upper level of each car seated 57 in chairs and 18 in a lounge area, while the lower level was given over to a bar-lounge. Its sleeping cars and diners were cast-offs from the Chief and other trains, while some of its coaches (which could seat 48) were new. In 1963–1964 the Santa Fe ordered 24 Hi-Level coaches for use on the San Francisco Chief.

In 1960 the San Francisco Chief carried "chair cars" (coaches), a "Big Dome" dome lounge, a dining car, and sleeping cars. The sleeping cars included sections, roomettes, double bedrooms, compartments, and drawing rooms. The train handled through sleepers from Tulsa, Oklahoma (to Chicago), Lubbock, Texas (to Chicago), and Dallas and Houston (to California) plus a set-out sleeper at Kansas City, Missouri. All chair car seats were reserved.

title: San Francisco Chief


text:
Kurt Ballou

Kurt Ballou (born February 1, 1974) is an American musician and record producer based in Massachusetts, best known as the guitarist for metalcore band Converge and for his prolific recording and production work at his own GodCity Studio.

Early and personal life
Kurt Ballou started playing saxophone in elementary school. He performed in jazz band, concert band and orchestra, dabbling between baritone saxophone, bassoon and bass clarinet. Ballou was accepted to join the Hartford School of Music, but he opted to study aerospace engineering instead. His father used to have a guitar that Ballou played occasionally, but it did not interest him until a school friend gave him Slayer tapes around the age of sixteen.

He is a vegan and follows a straight edge lifestyle.

Career
Since 1990, Kurt Ballou has played in the metalcore band Converge. From 1996 to 2000 Ballou played in the hardcore punk band The Huguenots. From 1996 to 1999 Ballou and Stephen Brodsky played in the rock band Kid Kilowatt. In 1998 Ballou established GodCity Studio. From 1999 to 2002 Ballou and Ben Koller played in the hardcore punk band Blue/Green Heart.

God City Studio
In the late 1990s, Kurt Ballou was working as a biomedical engineer when his then-project got cancelled. Instead of selecting a different position within the same company that he had worked with for six years, Ballou opted to receive a severance package which he used to build his own recording studio. His experiences and knowledge in engineering carry over to his recording work. In regards to Ballou's technical precision as a producer, Jacob Bannon (of Converge) has stated, "Nothing gets by him—it is inspiring to watch him work."

Established in 1998, God City Studio is located in Ballou's home state of Massachusetts. One of the earliest recordings from the studio was Cave In's Until Your Heart Stops. Ballou handled all production, engineering, and mastering for the record.

Ballou has stated that collaborating on Jane Doe with co-producer Matthew Ellard was a huge learning experience for him as an engineer and producer. Ellard jokingly stated Ballou "watched him like a hawk" during the engineering and producing process.

In 2005 Ballou remixed and remastered Converge's Petitioning the Empty Sky and When Forever Comes Crashing. Ballou has stated that because of the quality of [Converge's] recordings has improved so much that the original recordings were "becoming distracting". Ballou has also produced and co-produced several Converge albums, including 2001's Jane Doe, 2004's You Fail Me and 2006's No Heroes. He has also produced a number of independent metal and hardcore bands, including Genghis Tron's Board Up the House, Torche's Meanderthal, Disfear's Live the Storm and Darkest Hour's Godless Prophets & the Migrant Flora.

One reason that motivated Ballou to get in to the studio side of music was to have "maximum control over Converge's music." He further stated, "When we were starting out, no one wanted to help us anyway, so if we didn't take control, nothing was going to get done." Ballou has claimed to admire producers such as Ken Andrews, Martin Bisi, Fred Drake, Steve Albini, and Don Zientara.

Equipment

 * Guitars commonly used: GodCity Instruments guitars, Wild Customs The Savage One w/ EMG P85 bridge pickup, First Act Custom Sheena Guitar w/ EMG 81 bridge pickup, Warmoth Custom Jazzmaster W/ EMG 89 bridge pickup, First Act Custom Offset-Horns Double-Cutaway, Rickenbacker 650A w/ EMG 81 bridge pickup.
 * Amps commonly used: Orange OR50 head, Sparrows Sons overdrive std (aka Sparrow amp), Bad Cat Black Cat head, Bad Cat Lynx head, Marshall 1987x Plexi Reissue, 1978 Marshall 50-watt JMP 2204, Ampeg V-4 head, Guild Thunderbass.
 * Speaker Enclosures commonly used: Emperor 6x12 cabinet (2), Marshall customized 4x12 cabinet w/ four "Eminence vintage 30 clone" 12-inch speakers, Marshall 8x10 cabinet w/ stock 15-watt Celestions.
 * Effects commonly used: Providence Stampede Distortion, Boss GE-7 Graphic Equalizer, Akai Headrush, Earthquaker Devices Avalanche Run, Boss PS-3 Pitch Shifter/Delay, Boss HM-2 Heavy Metal, TC Electronic Polytune, Boss Noise Suppressor, TC Electronic Mimiq.

With Converge

 * Halo in a Haystack (1994)
 * Petitioning the Empty Sky (1996)
 * When Forever Comes Crashing (1998)
 * Jane Doe (2001)
 * You Fail Me (2004)
 * No Heroes (2006)
 * Axe to Fall (2009)
 * All We Love We Leave Behind (2012)
 * The Dusk in Us (2017)
 * Bloodmoon: I (2021)

With The Huguenots

 * The Huguenots (1998) (EP)
 * The Huguenots / Sevenpercentsolution (2000) (split with Sevenpercentsolution)
 * Discography (2007)

With Blue/Green Heart

 * Self Esteem Through Modern Science (2001) (EP)

With Kid Kilowatt

 * Guitar Method (2004)

Heavy Music Awards
!Ref.
 * 2018
 * Himself
 * Best Producer
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=1|
 * rowspan=1|

title: Kurt Ballou


text:
Dynaset

1. A dynaset (short for dynamic set) is a set of data that is dynamically linked back to the database. Instead of having the query result stored in a temporary table, where the data cannot be updated directly by the user, the dynaset allows the user to view and update the data contained in the dynaset. Thus, if a university lecturer queried all students who received a distinction in their assignment and found an error in that student's record, they would only need to update the data in the dynaset, which would automatically update the student's database record without the need for them to send a specific update query after storing the query results in a temporary table.

The concept was initially put forth by E.F. Codd, the inventor of the relational database management system (RDBMS) concept.

2. A dynaset is a temporary set of data taken from one or more tables in the underlying file. A dynaset may be a query that was defined in an Access database, a single table, a subset of a table, or the result of joining multiple tables. A dynaset can be updated if the file is not locked or opened for ReadOnly. The data in the dynaset are "live" i.e., any changes made to the data as a project (in Visual Basic) is executing will appear in the corresponding recordset. Note: Dynasets created from joining tables are typically non-updateable.

The word "dynaset" was coined by David Risher during a design meeting for Microsoft Access 1.0.

title: Dynaset


text: User talk:84.9.84.63

title: User talk:84.9.84.63


text:
Category:That '70s Show characters

 * Characters from That '70s Show.

title: Category:That '70s Show characters


text:
Area code 559

Area code 559 is a telephone area code in the North American Numbering Plan for the central San Joaquin Valley in central California. The numbering plan area includes the counties of Fresno, Madera, Kings, and Tulare, an area largely coextensive with the Fresno and Visalia-Porterville metropolitan areas. The area code was placed in service in 1998, when its services area was split from that of area code 209.

History
In 1997, the California-Nevada Code Administration (CNCA) determined that telephone number demand in the area exceeded normal forecasts, and placed area codes 209, 213, 310, 408, 619, 805, and 818 in jeopardy status of exhausting central office codes before normal relief could be implemented, triggering special conservation measures.

As a result, area code 559 was created in an area code split of the 209 numbering plan area on November 14, 1998. The new area code was assigned to the southern part of 209. A permissive dialing period was maintained until May 15, 1999. Although this provided general relief, the California-Nevada Code Administration (CNCA) indicated that area code 209 remained in jeopardy status for further relief actions.

Like many other regions that had experienced area code changes and additions during the first boom of wireless devices, such as cellular telephones and pagers in the 1990s, both 559 and 209 were in the early planning stages of relief, potentially creating the need for introduction of further new area codes. Yet by 2002, telephone number pooling was enforced for the 209 and 559 central offices, reducing the size of telephone number blocks allocated to carriers from 10,000 to 1,000 numbers.

Area code 559 is expected to exhaust in 2025. For relief, an overlay complex with area code 357 is planned which will necessitate the implementation of ten-digit dialing (1+10-digit for landlines) in the central San Joaquin Valley.

Service area
The area code serves the Central California counties of Fresno, Madera, Kings, and Tulare.

The major cities within the service region are Fresno, Coalinga, Clovis, Madera, Sanger, Reedley, Dinuba, Selma, Tulare, Visalia, Hanford, Lemoore, Porterville, Avenal, and Kingsburg.

Fresno County

 * Auberry
 * Big Creek
 * Biola
 * Bowles
 * Calwa
 * Cantua Creek
 * Caruthers
 * Clovis
 * Coalinga
 * Del Rey
 * Dunlap
 * Easton
 * Firebaugh
 * Fowler
 * Fresno
 * Friant
 * Huron
 * Kerman
 * Kingsburg
 * Knowles
 * Lanare
 * Laton
 * Mendota
 * Mercey Hot Springs
 * Orange Cove
 * Parlier
 * Pinedale
 * Prather
 * Raisin City
 * Reedley
 * Riverdale
 * Rolinda
 * San Joaquin
 * Sanger
 * Selma
 * Shaver Lake
 * Squaw Valley
 * Tollhouse
 * Tranquillity

Kings County

 * Armona
 * Avenal
 * Corcoran
 * Hanford
 * Hardwick
 * Home Garden
 * Kettleman City
 * Lemoore Station
 * Lemoore
 * Stratford

Madera County

 * Ahwahnee
 * Bonadelle Ranchos-Madera Ranchos
 * Chowchilla
 * Coarsegold
 * Fish Camp
 * Madera Acres
 * Madera
 * Millerton
 * North Fork
 * Oakhurst
 * Parksdale
 * Parkwood
 * Raymond
 * Yosemite Lakes

Tulare County

 * Alpaugh
 * Badger
 * Cutler
 * Dinuba
 * Ducor
 * East Orosi
 * East Porterville
 * Exeter
 * Farmersville
 * Goshen
 * Ivanhoe
 * Lemon Cove
 * Lindsay
 * London
 * Orosi
 * Pixley
 * Poplar-Cotton Center
 * Porterville
 * Richgrove
 * Springville
 * Strathmore
 * Terra Bella
 * Three Rivers
 * Tipton
 * Traver
 * Tulare
 * Visalia
 * Woodlake
 * Woodville

title: Area code 559


text: File:OriginalPirateMaterial.jpg

title: File:OriginalPirateMaterial.jpg


text:
Office of Policy Coordination

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was the covert operation wing of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Created as a department of the CIA in 1948, it actually operated independently until October 1950. OPC existed until 1 August 1952, when it was merged with the Office of Special Operations (OSO) to form the Directorate of Plans (DDP).

History
OPC was preceded by the Special Procedures Group (SPG), whose creation in March 1948 had been authorized in December 1947 with President Harry Truman's approval of the top-secret policy paper NSC4-A. SPG was located within the CIA's Office of Special Operations (OSO), the CIA department responsible for intelligence collection, and was first used to influence the Italian election of 1948, a policy success which demonstrated that psychological/political warfare could be the key to winning the Cold War. OSO, the successor to the Strategic Services Unit (SSU), was headed by an Assistant Director for Special Operations (ADSO). CIA's expanded mandate caused jealousy in the State Department and the Department of Defense. When OPC was created, it inherited all of SPG's resources, including more than $2 million. It also acquired funds and labor projects from the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA).

On 18 June 1948, Truman approved NSC10/2 which created the Office of Special Projects. George F. Kennan, the director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, was the key figure behind its creation. Before the agency started operating on 1 September 1948 it was renamed to the Office of Policy Coordination. The name change was in anticipation of public scrutiny; the new name would better deflect away attention from the covert activities. Frank Wisner from the State Department was chosen to be the first director.

Control over the new entity was highly contentious. Although formally a department of the CIA, it was responsible to the State Department, and DCI Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (1947–1950) exercised no authority over the OPC. According to the historian Gregory Mitrovich, OPC effectively "became an intelligence apparatus for the departments of state and defense". The OPC was brought under the control of the CIA on 12 October 1950, days after Hillenkoetter was replaced by Walter Bedell Smith, when the new DCI simply announced that he was in charge of the OPC. After taking control over the OPC, Smith became concerned about the size of OPC's covert operations, which had been vastly expanded in accordance with NSC 68. Smith feared that the added responsibility would undermine CIA's primary function, namely the collection of intelligence.

OPC became embroiled in organizational rivalry with OSO, with which there was operational overlap, even though OSO was focused on intelligence collection rather than action. Smith attempted to ameliorate the situation by appointing Allen Dulles on 4 January 1951 to the new position of Deputy Director for Plans (DDP) where he would supervise the two entities. According to Anne Karalekas, a staffer of the Church Committee who wrote a history of the CIA, that was merely a cosmetic change, and it was only on 1 August 1952 that OPC and OSO was properly merged into the Directorate of Plans (DDP). Wisner, who had replaced Allen on 23 August 1951, assumed the command functions of ADSO and ADPC. According to John Prados, the name was intended to disguise its true function.

==Assistant Directors for Policy Coordination == The OPC was headed by the Assistant Director for Policy Coordination (ADPC).

Operational Scope
Point 5 of the NSC 10/2 defined the scope of "covert operations", which would be overseen by the OPC:

"5. As used in this directive, "covert operations" are understood to be all activities (except as noted herein) which are conducted or sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Specifically, such operations shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations shall not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations."

The OPC grew rapidly during the Korean War. In April 1951, President Truman established the Psychological Strategy Board in order to coordinate all US psychological warfare strategy.

Amongst the propaganda mission the psywar staff carried out was the funding of the 1954 Hollywood production of George Orwell's "Animal Farm", which should portray communist domination in an allegorical way.

title: Office of Policy Coordination