text:
Jon Macken

Jonathan Paul Macken (born 7 September 1977) is a football manager and former professional player who played as a striker. He is currently manager of Witton Albion.

He began his career with Premier League side Manchester United in 1995 but was released two years later after failing to make a first-team appearance. He joined Preston North End for £250,000 and managed to notch up 63 goals in 189 league matches until his departure to Manchester City in 2002. Macken eventually made his first Premier League appearance for City. He only managed to score seven goals in 51 appearances during his three years with City but notably scored against United in the Manchester derby in 2004. He signed for Crystal Palace in 2005 and while there, moved to Ipswich Town on loan. In 2007, he moved again to Derby County but was loaned out to Barnsley after failing to make an impact at Pride Park where he failed to score in 11 league appearances. He joined Barnsley permanently in 2008 and moved again to Walsall two years later. He was released by the Saddlers at the end of the 2011–12 season and joined Northern Premier League side Northwich Victoria, before joining Stockport County briefly in 2013.

He has one international cap for the Republic of Ireland, which he earned in 2004.

Preston North End
Born in Blackley, Greater Manchester, Macken began his career at Manchester United and signed as a professional in 1996, but never played a first-team game for them and left on 22 July 1997 in a £250,000 move to Preston North End in 1997.

He scored over 70 goals at Preston, twice winning the Player of the Year award. In 1999–2000, under David Moyes, 25 goals from Macken saw Preston win the Second Division title.

Manchester City
Following this success, Macken moved to fellow Division One side Manchester City in February 2002, for a fee of £5 million and was part of the team that ended the season winning promotion to the Premier League. He is most remembered at City for scoring the winner in the 4–3 comeback win against Tottenham in the 2003–04 FA Cup on 4 February. He is also remembered for scoring the 2nd and decisive goal against Manchester United in the first ever Manchester Derby at the City of Manchester Stadium. However, he was severely hampered by a succession of injuries, and only made 27 league starts in over three years. This downturn in his career brought about a move away from Manchester and Macken joined Crystal Palace in the summer of 2005 for £1.1 million.

Crystal Palace
Initially, Macken did not get into the Palace team, and was behind England international Andrew Johnson and Republic of Ireland international Clinton Morrison. An injury to Johnson gave him a chance, initially, but then he himself got injured. His own replacement, Dougie Freedman showed good form, and despite a recovery from injury, Macken did not get back in the team.

However, things turned upwards from there. Poor form by Morrison in the run-up to the Christmas period gave Macken his chance, and he scored his first competitive goal for Palace in the game at Coventry City, on 14 October 2005 (he had previously scored in a pre-season friendly), and scored again on 26 December, at Ipswich Town, although he was later sent off.

More injuries then continued to limit his chances, and the partnership with Johnson continued to alternate between Morrison and Dougie Freedman, with many fans voicing their discontent that Macken was not living up to his price-tag. Johnson was sold to Everton, prompting the return of Sándor Torghelle to the club from his loan at Panathinaikos, creating speculation that Macken may be leaving the club, but the appointment of Peter Taylor as manager appeared to silence this. Taylor, a known fan of Macken, had reportedly tried to sign him for Hull, while he was in charge there.

Torghelle left permanently for Greece, but again his playing opportunities were limited. On deadline-day of the Summer 2006 transfer window, he made a further move to Ipswich Town in The Championship, this time on loan, being handed the number 27 shirt. The loan was finally agreed when Ipswich agreed to pay an increased proportion of his wages. Macken scored three goals for the Tractor Boys before returning to Selhurst Park.

Derby County
On 31 January 2007 Macken joined Derby County on a free transfer. Derby were promoted to the Premier League at the end of the 2006–07 season, but he failed to win a regular place, or even score for The Rams, and was loaned out to Championship side Barnsley for two months in November 2007. Although he was recalled on 27 December 2007 he eventually signed a permanent deal with the Tykes on 28 January 2008 for an undisclosed six-figure fee.

Barnsley
Macken initially joined Barnsley on 1 November 2007, on loan from Derby County. He made his debut against the club that made his name, Preston North End. He remained goalless for his first nine games, despite having produced a string of fine performances. On 22 December, he scored his first Barnsley goal against promotion chasing Bristol City after a fine run and shot.

The goals were flowing for Macken and he notched a brace against Stoke City on 26 December. First a header from a Martin Devaney corner. His second goal came courtesy of a Kayode Odejayi knock-down from another Devaney cross. He then returned to Derby after Paul Jewell took over. He made a couple of substitute appearances for the Rams but his return to Barnsley was secured on 28 January 2008 for £200,000.

The next day, he marked his return with a goal in the home game with Colchester United. He then scored the second goal in a 2–1 win over West Bromwich Albion on 9 February, and also scored in a big win over Ipswich Town on 11 March.

He was released by Barnsley after the 2009–10 season and left when his contract expired in June.

Walsall
On 19 August 2010, League One club Walsall signed Macken on a one-year deal with the option of a further year. On 9 May 2012 it was announced that Macken had been released by Walsall.

Northwich Victoria
On 9 October 2012 it was reported that Macken had signed for Northwich Victoria. He made his debut for the club in a 1–1 draw at Newcastle Town, as an 80th-minute substitute, that evening.

Stockport County
On 31 January 2013, it was announced by Stockport County that Jon Macken had signed until the end of the 2012–13 season on a free transfer. Along with Mark Cullen and Jake Fowler, he was the first signing by new manager Darije Kalezić.

Macken made his Stockport debut as a second-half substitute in County's 3–2 home win over Nuneaton Town on 2 February. He scored his first goal for the club against rivals Macclesfield Town on 30 March. Following their relegation from the Conference National, he was released.

Bamber Bridge
On 24 February 2015, Macken came out of retirement to sign for Bamber Bridge. He made his debut in a 2–1 defeat to Darlington 1883 on 28 February.

England U20
Macken made his debut for the England U20 national team in June 1997; he replaced Danny Murphy in the 64th minute of the win against the United Arab Emirates during the 1997 FIFA World Youth Championship in Malaysia. He picked up a late booking in the 5−0 win at the Larkin Stadium. This turned out to be his only cap.

Republic of Ireland
Despite being born in England and representing England at youth level, Macken was cleared to play for the Republic of Ireland in 2004; he qualified through his grandparents, who were born in Cavan. On 18 August 2004, he made his debut when he replaced Clinton Morrison in the 63rd minute of the 1−1 draw with Bulgaria at Lansdowne Road.

Management career
In September 2017, Macken was appointed as manager of non-league club Radcliffe Borough. He left the club in January 2020 citing differences over the future direction of the club. He was appointed head coach at Colne in December 2021.

Honours
Preston North End
 * Football League Second Division: 1999–2000

Derby County
 * Football League Championship play-offs: 2007

Awards
 * Football League Second Division Team of the Year: 1999–2000
 * Preston North End Players' Player of the Year: 1999–2000, 2000–01
 * Preston North End Young Player of the Year: 1999–2000
 * Preston North End Player of the Year: 2000–01

title: Jon Macken


text:
Category:Explorers of the Pacific

 * See also Category:Explorers of Oceania

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

title: Category:Explorers of the Pacific


text:
Rarotonga International Airport

Rarotonga International Airport  (Papa Rererangi o Rarotonga) is the Cook Islands' main international gateway, located in the town and district of Avarua, Rarotonga, 3 km west of the downtown area on the northern coast. Originally built in 1944, the airport was expanded in the early 1970s, and officially opened for jets in January 1974.

Because of the proximity of the runways to the nearby roads, it is possible to get very close to the aircraft while they are departing and landing. In July 2015, three tourists were injured by jet blast after being blown over while watching an Air New Zealand Boeing 777 take off. Consequently, in 2016, the Cook Islands Tourism Corporation warned tourist operators that they should not promote the jet blast area as a tourist attraction.

History
An unsealed airstrip at Nikao was originally constructed by the New Zealand Department of Public Works in 1944, with the first flight landing in November 1945. The New Zealand National Airways Corporation operated fortnightly flights to Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Aitutaki from 1945 to 1952, and Polynesian Airways operated flights to Apia from 1963 to 1966. In 1964 the airstrip was extended from 5,000 to 6,000 feet, and TEAL proposed sealing the runway to allow for jet aircraft. The issue was forced in 1966, when increased regulation of international flights requiring the use of larger aircraft threatened to cut off air travel entirely. Local land-owners agreed to expansion, and the New Zealand government agreed to provide funding in exchange for control of airspace rights. Construction began in June 1970, and completed in 1973. The first jet flight, an Air New Zealand Douglas DC-8, landed in December 1973. The international airport was officially opened on 28 January 1974.

The Cook Islands government took control of landing rights in 1985. In 2003, the terminal and departure and check-in areas were revamped at a cost of US$650,000. An $8.5 million reconstruction project commenced in 2009 to revamp and expand the existing terminal facilities. The new-look terminal was officially opened on 22 June 2010.

title: Rarotonga International Airport


text:
User talk:19193221

Hi, Welcom!! Here is a story i made up!!

Imaginary land

Once there was a girl and she was 8 years old. And she had a friend like no other, it was an imaginary friend! When ever she talked to hem at school or any other place every body laughed at her. Her name was Sally. And her imaginary friends name was Booba. To her he was so sweet. Booba was light blue with purple spots. Her mother and father tried to get her to play with real people. But she did not listen. One day she got sick of people making fun of her because she had an imaginary friend. So Booba took her to imaginary land. When she got there, it was like no other place. Rainbows always in the sky, butterflies with all different colors and it never stormed or anything. Sally loved it. When Sally was there, she met other kids her age. And one of them was a guy she thought was cute. Then, it was a mean girl from her school class. When she came, every body screamed and hid. Sally hid with booba. The girl from Sally’s school, well her imaginary friend is bad. Imaginary friends the only way to fight her imaginary friend was to get all the imaginaries to hold hands and all the power together will kill hem. Sally asked why they have not killed hem yet. Booba said that every body was too scared. The next day Sally saw that cute boy again. Sally didn’t know what to say, accept for hi. When sally got to booba she asked why just booba and her could not fight the bad imaginary friend. Booba said to her that 20 people or more need to fight. Sally was a brave little girl and she wanted to fight the bad imaginary friend now! She wanted to interview everyone in imaginary land. Accept for the bad imaginaries. First she started with the cute boy and his imaginary friend. She found out that his name was Mike. She asked him if he thought that they should fight now. And she asked him if he and his imaginary friend were scared to fight the bad imaginary friends. They said no, they thought exactly what Sally thought. Sally said that she thought the same. Mike said to Sally why just you, our imaginary friends, and me fight the bad imaginary friend. Sally said what booba said to mike. There needs to be 20 people or more to fight. Sally went on to the next person to interview. Nobody except for Sally and Mike wanted to fight. The rest of the people that she interviewed about that all said they were too scared. Sally wanted too fight. But no one accept Booba, Sally, and Mike wanted to fight, Sally was so mad. So she said to Booba I don’t care if there needs to be 20 people or more to fight we can fight together. Booba knew it was a bad idea but he wanted to try. So they decided to fight alone. With only 4 people to help. Sally, Mike, Mike’s imaginary friend, and Booba. They agreed that they would fight next time they saw the bad imaginary friend. The next day they saw him the bad imaginary friend. Sally remembered that they were supposed to fight next time they see the bad imaginary friend so Sally reminded Booba, Mike, and Mike’s imaginary friend. They were all so very scared but they did it anyway. When they started Booba whispered to Sally that it was not working. Sally did not know what to do but then she thought of a great idea she told Booba, Booba told Mike, and then Mike told his imaginary friend and then it all came back to her. Then Sally knew that everybody knew her idea. Her idea was to make it look like it was working when really it wasn’t so then people would join in and help. Because they would think it was safe. And that he would die. So Sally’s idea worked. People joined in and helped fight. When they were done the bad imaginary friend was gone. Sally felt so proud of her self. Then she saw the girl the one who had the bad imaginary friend. And she was crying Sally went to her just to be nice. Sally asked the girl her name. She said it was Rebecca. Sally said it was a very pretty name. Sally was trying to talk with but she did not know what to say. She was going to say why you crying but she are already knew and she did not want to make her feel worse. Then Sally said I am sorry about your imaginary friend. Then Rebecca said I’m not crying about that I’m crying because I feel guilty. For letting my imaginary friends destroy everything like that. Sally said that it was fine. And then Sally started to feel the same way. About her parents. So Sally decided to leave she told her parents how she felt and her parents said it dose not matter if she haze an imaginary friend or not. And they all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

By Shelby Watson

5/26/05

And here is another one:

Shopping For Love

Once there was a girl. Her name was Julie. She was eight years old. She had always dreamed of who she was going to marry. Time passed and she was thirty-three years old. She had one girl and one boy and they’re names were Steve and Isabel. Isabel was eight, and Steve was three. She opened her fridge, and absolutely NO food was there, so she had to go to the store for the 5th time in the week! So she went. When she was there she saw the same man she saw every time she went. There was a man there and his name was Tom. She always thought he was so handsome and she loved him so much but she did not know what he thought about her. He baby sited all the time so the kids liked him. She knew he was the one. She went out every Saturday with her friends and got someone to baby sit. Her friends said “We have a special surprise for you!! It’s a blind date!!” She acted like she was happy but she did not care at all……until she saw who it was with. It was Tom!! The guy that she loved. He said “Julie!” and then Julie said “Tom!” so they had they’re date and it went perfect they got to know each other better. Tom liked Julie too. After a while they started dating more and more often. And they were girlfriend and boyfriend. When Julie got home, right when she opened the door she shout with excitement and told her sister “Rebecca” (Witch was babysitting at that time) what happened. At that time she started to remember her older sister who was in war. She started to cry. A couple of days later, she went out again with Tom. But this night was special. A Limo picked her up and took her to the fancy rest-runt and then it was quiet and Tom reached in his pocket and got something, he slowly got on one nee and he said “Will you marry me?” Julie burst out with tears saying “yes!!!!” over and over and over.

They got married. They had there wedding in a really nice church Julie looked around and there she was her sister who had been gone at war. Julie missed here so much when it was over she gave here a great big hug! They had one more child. They named her Sadie. The whole family was perfect.

And They All Lived Happily Ever After

The End

Shelby Watson

7/13/05

title: User talk:19193221


text:
Wikipedia:Bible verses

This survey is now closed.

 The results were as follows:

1) What Bible verses should have articles?
 * all - 7 (12%); all Gospel - 1 (2%); all notable verses - 38 (65%); majority - 1 (2%); none - 11 (19%)

2) Should there be a WikiBible?
 * yes - 16 (48%); no - 17 (51%)

3) How many Bible verses are notable?
 * 'the majority' - 4 (10%); 'a large minority' - 2 (5%); 'a small minority' - 12 (37%); a 'vast minority' 8 (19%); abstentions ('we can't say') - 12 (29%)

This is a survey to aid in determining policy. It is not itself intended as a proposed policy. There is a related discussion underway at Merge/Bible verses.

 * This concerns an issue that has been under consideration for the last month, with the general problem of failing to achieve consensus for any result (it is roughly 50:50 on each side of the argument, with the last VFD declared "keep" although the delete votes had a slight majority, of 2)

 * The debate is what to do about Bible verses. Should articles exist for every single bible verse in the bible, or just for some specially notable verses, or somewhere in-between. The result may affect articles on verses of other religious literature, such as the Qur'an and Mahabharata (over 100,000 verses, and the second longest poem known to exist in the world). It will also affect the articles listed here.

 '''This survey does not discuss what to do with articles IF they should not exist individually. Whether, in this circumstance, they should be moved, transwikied, or deleted is a matter for discussion elsewhere'''

 * Since some religious sects, groups, and faiths, attach extreme importance to their opinion on the matter, this question is possibly liable to sockpuppet abuse on one or more sides of the argument. Consequently editors with under 200 edits as of 22nd June 2005 (one month ago, roughly when the matter was first raised), may be discounted, to avoid any potential sockpuppet abuse. Discounted votes will remain on the page but a comment will be added if the number of edits is small or user account is new.

 * This survey will remain open until 22nd August 2005.

All bible verses should have individual articles
This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single bible verse deserves its own article.
 * 1) This is closest to what I support. I don't believe that that any and all Bible verses are automatically worthy of an article, don't get me wrong, but when an article is well-written, thourough, and encyclopedic, I'd rather not rely on somebody's defination of "notable bible verse", because that tends to be subjective. Support. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For various reasons, although I'd rather see the whole thing transwikied to WikiBible. Tomer TALK  04:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, per Blu Aardvark - very well said. --Idont Havaname 00:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Blu Aardvark. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support What Blu Aardvark said. Ryan 10:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Suppprt Agreeing with Blu Aardvark to be on the safe side. I don't actually believe that all Bible verses are notable, but I don't think one poll should determine the fate of hundreds of potential articles. Kaldari 23:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Suppprt. This is exactly the sort of detailed commentry a good encyclopaedia should contain. 80.255 00:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

All new testament verses should have individual articles, but not necessarily old testament ones
This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single new testament verse deserves its own article, but not necessarily every old testament verse.

All gospel verses should have individual articles, but not 100% of other verses
This section is for votes supporting the principle that every single gospel verse (i.e. verses in the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John) deserves its own article, but not necessarily 100% of the other verses of the bible.
 * 1) Sam Vimes 19:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC) This is the one I most agree with. IMO, the policy should be something like: "chapter articles unless the chapters become too big and unwieldy to read, then verse articles", and that would probably fit into here.

All verses notable in their own right should have individual articles
This section is for votes supporting the principle that only verses notable in their own right, rather than because they are part of the bible, or part of a part of the bible, should get their own articles. This position allows articles such as John 3:16 and Jesus wept, but is unlikely to include articles such as Matthew 1:9.
 * 1)     17:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Angr/undefined 18:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Wetman 18:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Because by definition the others are "non-notable". Selecting single verses out of chapters removes the context essential to an encyclopedia as compared to a dictionary.
 * 4) kooo 18:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oleg Alexandrov 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) older≠wiser 19:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC), although this inevitably broaches the highly subjective criteria for notability.
 * 7) kmccoy (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC) -- I'd also be strongly in favor of seeing a whole WikiBible thing happen on a more appropriate forum, maybe WikiBooks or something.
 * 8) Christopher Parham (talk) 20:04, 2005 July 23 (UTC) Obvious, though everyone agrees on the same principle about schools and it doesn't stop the debate.
 * 9) --Doc (?) 21:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC) But this is sooo pointless, as I might think several thousand of them are notable (including Matthew 1:9 - if a good case can be made by someone)- and -Ril- cites two examples. So we are still going to have to debate each individual verse on its metits as at the moment.
 * 10) — Phil Welch 22:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) David | Talk 22:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Hansamurai 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Notable Bible verses should be included in Wikipedia and I am also in full support of a Bible Wiki project.
 * 13) If all Bible verses should have articles, then which Bible should we use?  Different branches of Christianity have different books they consider part of the Bible. --Carnildo 04:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) I don't regard this as applying to very many verses. The two examples given above are worthy of their own articles I think, but which others? Most are better covered in a combined article about a certain passage, or chapter, or book. What is the bar for notability here? — Trilobite (Talk) 05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Plenty of verses have made their way into literature, general western culture, but the vast majority have not. I strongly support (and I am a bible reading christian) a move which restricts single verse entries. It would be rare to publish a bible commentary on a single verse, which I think says something. As to which bible? I doubt that is a problem. In practice there is little argument about which books are in the bible, or might be in someone else's bible, which is all that matteres. Now verse by verse entries on the Mahabharata would of course be excellent 8-). Francis Davey 16:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I think a reasonable gauge for notability would be the extent that a particular verse has made its way into literature or culture in general, which at least has some chance of being objectively verified at some level. Mustn't confuse "notable" with "important" because every verse is very important to someone, and has been commented on and preached on. Wesley 20:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Under the assumption that pretty much every verse is notable. - SimonP 21:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * You did read the bit that says that "this position...is unlikely to include articles such as Matthew 1:9" ? If so, as the author of that article, and other genealogy verse articles, could you VFD them please.     23:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like your assessment of what this position would be likely to include was, in fact, perhaps inaccurate. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:45, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
 * You're right. I have switched to a less ambiguous example. - SimonP 23:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've switched it back. YOU CAN'T CHANGE WHAT PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR AFTER THEY HAVE VOTED.     00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added a new section below for you to move your vote to to support your position about which verses are notable (i.e. that it is a majority rather than small minority).     00:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, but at creation time, the entries should already assert the verse notability. Otherwise it's inclusionist paradise: stick all single verses of the bible, then wait until someone proves they're notable. That's why I think notability assertion at creation time is a must. drini ☎ 01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The articles should 1not merely quote the verse, but actually say something about it, it should 2assert notability from the start (as per drini), and should 3be provided with references to reputable academic secondary sources. It is also preferable that topics are covered from top to bottom: first book, then chapter and finally verses or other shorter passages. However, notability should not only be judged from a narrow Western Christian (or rather secularized "post-christian") perspective or from presence in general Western culture or political discourse; that is not how we judge notability for lunar craters, asteroids or beetle species, most of which are only notable to specialists. It is up to the author to make a case for notability, but any verse asserted by the author to be notable for any reason, because of a debate over its meaning in academic biblical scholarship or because of its significance in Christian or Jewish traditions of interpretation obscure to the average wikipedian, should be individually discussed and judged on its own merits. Uppland 07:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree that notability should be asserted at time of creation. Not all verses are notable. The JPS 10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, else why not create WikiBible and concordances? WP is not a data dump. WP is an encyclopedia, where "notability" or whatever one might call it has sway. Wyss 17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Bcat  ( talk •  email ) 23:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, though as noted above, notability threshold will inevitably become a matter of debate. carmeld1 23:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as this is the only criteria applied to every other topic. This means that I support the idea that MOST verses will not have individual articles. DavidH 01:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support We should further debate notability, it should be similiar to general article notability. cohesion | talk 04:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Some verses are definitely notable in their own right, but Matthew 1:9 is a perfect example of where you actually lose information if you give it a separate article, because it's so connected to the following verses. Except for notable verses, having an article for every verse disrupts the narrative of the story and the coherence of Wikipedia's coverage. Junes 09:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, under the assumption that the number of really notable individual verses is 20 at the very most. (I'm a Catholic who signed up on 20 June 2005, so I'm aware my vote may be discounted, whatever "may" means in this context.) KissL 09:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Although I can see HUGE debates in the future over what is notable. I am voting for this option although I think that there are very, very few veres that fit this criteria so that almost all the Bible articles in the Wikipedia focusing on the Books of the bible. Athough there are Bible chapters that are worthy of an encyclopedia entry, I think that most articles on sections smaller that individial books should focus on the stories in the Bible, which are usually several chapters in length. Blank Verse   ∅  18:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, though answering the question of notability is, of course, difficult. -R. fiend 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support RossNixon 21:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support grubber 13:00, 2005 August 4 (UTC) - if there's enough information to get an article out of the stub phase, let it have it's page. Placeholders for verses should not be allowed.
 * 15) Support agreed, rest of the verses should be transwikied.pamri 07:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support The Literate Engineer 23:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Ravenswood 16:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) I support this option, as per my previous votes at VfD. - Mike Rosoft 18:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) (Warning: My opinion "may be discounted" since I have less than 200 edits and am relatively new to the Wiki. But I'm not a sockpuppet, and you can contact me easily inside or out of the Wikipedia.) I believe anything notable in its own right may have an article of its own, if there is someone to write it according to the usual rules (know what you talk about, NPOV, encyclopaedic, not your own original research, etc.). Certainly some Bible verses (and some verses in the Qur'an and in the Daodejing and...) are notable. Maybe many of them. I don't think each and every single Bible verse is notable in its own right even if it may be included as part of an article on a group of verses (possibly duplicated: e.g., the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments each merit a single article though they each appear in two places in the Bible), a famous poem (Deborah's Song), a famous chapter (John 1), a topical article (Begats), a book (and IMHO most Bible books merit individual articles, though in some cases it could be argued that some particular groups of books would best be treated together: maybe the Twelve Minor Prophets, or Kings I and II or...). -- Tonymec 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, but with the understanding that a strong case can be made for the notability of all, or almost all, of the non-geneological verses. Dsmdgold 16:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 06:49:41 Z

The majority of verses are notable in their own right anyway
This section is for votes supporting the principle that only verses notable in their own right, rather than because they are part of the bible, or part of a part of the bible, should get their own articles. However, this section is for votes where this principle covers most verses, which are believed by the signatories to be notable in their own right. This position allows articles such as John 3:16 and Matthew 5:5, but is unlikely to include articles such as 1 Chronicles 1:2.
 * 1) Yes. See my comments further below; surely there are more notable Bible verses than there are Category:Television series, which I beleive currently numbers in the thousands on WP.   linas 00:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote is irrelevant, because people who think so should (and have) vote for "All bible verses should have individual articles" rather than "All verses notable in their own right should have individual articles". This vote here seeks to blur the distinction between two clear-cut groups. Radiant_ >|< 07:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say just the opposite (though I agree with you that this option shouldn't have been added). Those who believe both that most or all verses deserve an article because they are notable in their own right should vote for the option that "all verses notable in their own right should have individual articles," because it most accurately reflects the principle upon which they are voting. In this poll, unfortunately, this cannot be done without drawing fire; see SimonP's vote above. -Ril- has clouded the issue by combining these points of principle with issues of fact, regarding the notability of specific articles. One of the first rules of survey design is to ask one question at a time; asking two, as this poll does, means that it is far more difficult for voters to express their intent accurately. In this instance, the notability of specific articles like Matthew 1:9 or Matthew 5:5 should be decided on VFD or on the relevant talk pages, not in a poll leading toward policy. The inclusion of these questions of fact point to the ill-considered and rushed nature of this poll. My vote, at least, should be interpreted as a vote for the principle only, and based on the comments, it seems that numerous others feel the same. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

No bible verses should have individual articles whatsoever
This section is for votes supporting the principle that absolutely no articles should exist describing just one bible verse.
 * 1) Flyers13 04:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Nova77 04:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Individual chapters should have their own articles if they're notable enough. Articles for individual verses is Biblecruft. We already have a Bible section at Wikibooks, why duplicate it here?   — J I P | Talk 08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Most of the articles I have seen on individual verses seem very PoV and carry largely irrelevant material. There are lots of places where Biblebashers can play their games analysing the meaning of each jot and tittle. Albatross2147 13:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I dont oppose individual books and authors in the Bible but I feel having every verse is excessive. The notable verses could simply be expanded upon in each book article rather than "stand alone". JamesBurns 02:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Displaying every single Bible verse may give an impression that the article was written by Christian fundamentalists (129.241.134.241 19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
 * 7) Niteowlneils 00:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC). Stick with books and notable chapters, and passages that transcend religious study (EG the Sermon on the Mount is probably well enuf known by non-scholars to have its own article).
 * Many Wikipedia articles on chemical, astronomical or mathematical topics are about things only notable to specialists, or at least near-specialists (such as somebody with some amount of tertiary education in the field, or well-read amateurs): mathematical theorems, individual lunar craters etc. Why should the measurement of notability of academia be accepted in the case of hard science, but articles on humanistic or literary topics such as these be limited to what is known to "non-scholars"? Uppland 10:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Verses should be covered by articles on books they are from. Finer details are should left to specialised sites. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Usrnme h8er 11:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Changed vote because it appears that no matter how many are allowed, if we allow so much as one here on Wikipedia, people will try to make it the Christianpedia. Almafeta 23:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Nabla 14:41:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Voting on secondary issues
Votes here may be in addition to votes above.

Yes

 * 1) — Phil Welch 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. In this way people will not try to create a Wikipedia article for each and every Bible verse. Oleg Alexandrov 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, there is a wealth of knowledge to be had about each and every bible verse.  Let's include that at a place more appropriate for it. kmccoy (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes.  Not sure how -Ril-'s comment below goes against this point.  I don't really care if there is a separate WikiBible, or a Bible project within Wikibooks; either way, reproductions and interpretations of Biblical text should be part of a "sister project" somewhere besides WP.  Dcarrano 01:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The best solution is to move it to WikiBible (or whatever such a project would be named).  The argument that it should be moved to WikiBooks made on the inconclusive VfD is unsatisfactory, as a WikiBible project is incompatible with what WikiBooks is about.  Tomer TALK  04:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I am in full support of this project and willing to help in its undertaking one way or another. Hansamurai 04:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Certainly. Carnildo 04:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) --Angr/undefined 06:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, mostly to avoid pressure to create meaningless-ish articles in other projects. —kooo 09:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be a WikiBible where many of these articles could be moved to. I have no objection to that. I agree with User:Oleg Alexandrov on this issue. JamesBurns 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, plainly. Wyss 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A Wikicity for the Bible (and if adventurous, all religious texts) would be more than 'appropriate', it would be a good idea. Almafeta 00:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikicities is a commercial project seperate from the Wikimedia Foundation (though you wouldn't guess it by the ridiculous amount of promotion it gets on Wikipedia). I believe this proposal is calling for a project to be set up under the auspices of Wikimedia. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it shouldn't be only for the Bible, but all religious texts, and maybe even philosophy texts... WikiLiterature? After all, all these texts make up a vast part of world literature. :) --Agari 19:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I am in favor of a WikiBible. Support --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I suppose this is a "support" vote, in that I have no problem with this proposal, but will not be working on it, and don't really care one way or the other. As WP has already given a decent start to such a project it seems like a good way to go. -R. fiend 20:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, prefer all religious texts to be in a 'WikiScriptures' or similar.RossNixon 21:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as there are similar provisions for other religious scriptures. pamri 07:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No

 * 1) We are already spreading our efforts too thinly by trying to create sister projects all over the place, and since this one will be seperated from Wikipedia and will likely be worked on by people with certain religious agendas, there are significant problems when it comes to NPOV and the Wikimedia Foundation becoming a vehicle for evangelism. Why can't we concentrate on encyclopedic content? This doesn't mean having an article on every verse. Look at the article on the Book of Hosea, for example. It's short and still has a notice saying that it's essentially modified public domain text. Can't those who wish to document the Bible start by improving articles on books, then when they get long and comprehensive breaking out into spin-off articles for notable passages in those books? I want Wikipedia to be a good source of information about the Bible. We're much too far short of that goal to start creating sister projects to contain articles for every verse. Come back and ask for WikiBible when Wikipedia is bursting at the seams with good coverage of Biblical topics. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Trilobite Albatross2147 13:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Trilobite as well. I think it's impossible to do a verse by verse biblical analysis and remain within wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Might be able to do it at a book level, and there's certainly plenty left to do there. Wesley 20:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with Trilobite, but not quite so much with Wesley - the goal with NPOV is not for NPOV to stand for "No Point of View" but rather "Neutral Point of View", and to cover all major points of view in adequate/ approximately equal depth. As long as enough people are working on the project, that shouldn't be a problem (barring edit wars from people of different denominations, etc.). --Idont Havaname 00:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I feel that Wikipedia is a more suitable location for this material. Wikibooks is for making text books, not for writing about books. Wikisource allows annotated texts, but there is a great difference from an annotated text and one that has twenty times as much information as text. - SimonP 00:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I think they fit here, and besides, I would rather have the articles here where we can enforce encyclopedic standards than have a sister project that turns into an evangelization project or something. JYolkowski // talk 23:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree with Trilobite. It will be a magnet for brainwashers and vandals. The JPS 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) We have too many sister projects already. — Bcat  ( talk •  email ) 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree with Trilobite Junes 09:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I agree with Trilobite, and change my vote to a "no". --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) If we do this, then why not divide off other special interestareas too --Doc (?) 09:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Concur with Trilobite: not yet. (I signed up on 20 June 2005.) KissL 09:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree with Trilobite, Usrnme h8er 11:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Errr.. Maybe Caution: not only can this spill over from hermeneutics into Shakesperian analysis and literary criticism in general, but many other subjects can potentially get sucked in. Please note that arguments about "what's notable" have already occurred in Category:Archaeology, and that the hard sciences, e.g. Category:Physics and Category:Mathematics are already crossing the boundry from "notable" to "obscure but highly important reference being used by professional mathematicians adnd physicists". Never mind that Category:Pokemon has already wandered off into "obscure and irrelevant" lala-land. This debate will engulf all of WP in the next few years, it just seems that the Bible leads the way. Do you want Biblical scholars writing articles on WP, or not?  How about extremist Koran scholars? linas 23:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be scholarly encyclopedia articles about bible verses. No need to shuffle them all off to somewhere else, since they will undoubtedly get recreated here anyway. Kaldari 00:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) It sounds like a noble effort, but it doesn't seem to "fit" with Wikipedia. I would not be against a totally unrelated endeavor, but tying it to Wikipedia is, IMO, a bad idea. Ravenswood 16:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) A scholarly discussion of the Bible, why not? But a single separate article for every verse? That seems farfetched to me. For every book, certainly. For every chapter, maybe. Who would write a distinct (ang long enough) page of encyclopaedic material on every single verse? IMHO most Biblical verses are better treated in groups of several related verses sharing a common context. -- Tonymec 00:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)     23:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC) It partially already exists as one of the WikiBooks
 * 2) It should remain in WikiBooks, and not become a wikiproject. I have the feeling that as wikiproject would be perceived by many as proof of wiki's systematic bias. Nova77 03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Niteowlneils 01:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia should not be a repository for all bible verses (as separate articles, at least). A WikiBible on the surface seems like a good idea, but I agree with the concerns above about a) being redundant with the WikiBooks Bible coverage, b) increasing our systemic bias, c) spreading ourselves too thin, and d) as Trilobyte said "Come back and ask for WikiBible when Wikipedia is bursting at the seams with good coverage of Biblical topics." For now, just add it to the Bible books articles. Niteowlneils 01:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) This seems to me to be outside of Wikipedia's purview. If people want to work on a Bible wiki, then they are welcome to do so. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 13:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Nabla 14:41:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

The vast majority
There are over 30,000 verses. Tens of thousands of these are notable.
 * 1) Yes. Lets put this into perspective.  There are hundreds of articles in Category:Pokemon, does everyone honestly believe that there are fewer notable verses of the Bible than there are Pokemon? Lets take a look at Category:Submarines -- that has hundreds as well.  Surely, that's a rather less-than notable category; who-all has been on a submarine anyway?  What about Category:Power companies or (egads) Category:Sitcoms or (snore) Category:Submarine power cables?   Lets broaden the perspective: is every topic in Category:Physics or Category:Mathematics notable? If you watch TV all day, then no. If you are doing mathematical research, then yes. There are already many thousands of articles on math and physics, and yet WP is not yet  "encyclopaedic" in these areas (as compared to the "real" encyclopaedias in these areas, e.g. Cambridge texts, etc. or even Mathworld).   Scholars have already debated every verse in the Bible repeatedly; I'm not sure why WP can't be as lively a forum for the Bible as it is for Category:Star Trek.  BTW, Koran too ... oh, and Shakespeare ... hermeneutics could/should be at least as big as Category:Television series, which I beleive has thousands of articles.  P.S. I actually rather dislike Christians; its just that the subject matter is rather interesting in its own right. linas 00:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes per linas. Ryan 10:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Considering how many articles there are on obscure popular songs and the like that have sold a few thousand copy and had negligable impact on history, most of the verses of the Bible have a very considerable historical impact of western civilisation and society. The scope of articles dealing with biblical verses is potentially very wide in an historical context. 80.255 23:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dsmdgold 16:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

A small majority
There are over 30,000 verses. Thousands of these are notable.

A large minority
There are over 30,000 verses. Hundreds of these are notable.
 * 1) Considering how much material has been written about virtually every portion of the bible, I would think there would at least be several hundred notable verses. Kaldari 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support What establishes notability?  Well, there's your obvious: art/pop culture.  Covers stuff like John 3:16, right?  Next, there's your even more obvious: major theological skirmishes.  Covers stuff like Sirach 15:16 (Catholics vs. Calvinists over predestination) or James... eh... #:## .  You know, "Faith without works is dead." (Catholics vs. Lutherans over faith alone vs. faith and action).  Then there's the "just about everybody knows it", which would be "Be there light!" (Genesis 1:2, I think?).  Then there's the obvious "It's been entwined in political issues in some country."  And as we all know, the English-speaking country and verse where this is most likely to apply is... Canada and Revelations 6:7.  ;)  Anyway, I think once the criteria of notability get established, it'll turn out only hundreds of the verses meet it.  For instance, Rev. 6:7 isn't actually notable, except in conjunction with the rest of Rev. 6:1 through Rev. 6:8, and while the 8 verses quite rightly go into Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, none of the 8 should get its own article.  The Literate Engineer 23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A small minority
There are over 30,000 verses. Only a few, in the order of 1-3 hundred or so are notable.
 * 1)     00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) drini ☎ 01:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oleg Alexandrov 01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I am more conviced that they are in the order of dozen instead. Nova77 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Once you get into Revelation, you could probably find a bunch of notable verses, but there aren't that many outside of there that are notable on their own. --Carnildo 06:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) — Phil Welch 06:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Hard to know if it's as many as 300. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) More detailed articles about the "less notable verses" should be at a transwiki'd location. kmccoy (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) I don't like the concept of notability: but equivalently I think only a few hundred verses are likely to make sense as individual articles in their own right. Its not a matter of notability really, the question is whether a particular verse stands sufficiently on its own in the totality of knowledge for it to be sensible to generate an isolated article about it. Francis Davey 18:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes. Asserting that most bible verses are notable in their own right is disruptive. Some are quoted often, some are rarely if ever quoted. David | Talk 22:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Number of notable verses is probably more like 50. carmeld1 00:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) yes a very small minority (10-50 at most) are notable outside of the context of a Bible annotation or evangelism project. DavidH 01:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Junes 09:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Tricky, not having read them all, but I'd say at most about 100 or so. I don't want to limit myself to 30 by voting below, but I'm close to doing so. I think most verses deserve mention in a larger context (book, chapter, or, preferably, story (eg "Birth of Jesus", etc)), not verse. -R. fiend 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (Note: I don't know if it was intentional, but my vote was removed in a previous edit, so I am reinserting it.) -R. fiend 01:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) *It probably wasn't; there is a bug in MediaWiki's conflict detection mechanism when section editing is used. See the discussion here for details and a way to reproduce the bug. KissL 08:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) "Tricky, not having read them all". This (a few hundred) is my impression of how many verses would merit an individual article. Certainly more are notable as part of a larger group. Anyway, I would gladly be disproved by seeing scholarly NPOV encyclopaedical articles on more verses than that; but please don't create stubs for every Biblical verse. Let articles be written, and any which are not up to Wiki standards may be (preferably) improved or (if necessary) VfD-ed. -- Tonymec 00:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A vast minority
There are over 30,000 verses. Only a select few, in the order of 10-30, are notable.
 * 1) John 3:16, Jesus Wept, and that verse that was popularized in Beavis & Butthead, "Jesus saddled his ass," should have their own Wikipedia articles. Maybe one or two more that I'm forgetting here.  But most verses are only notable if you're a Christian, and religious projects should have their own dedicated WikiCity.  Almafeta 00:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That quite bizzare reasoning - couple of billion Christians might outstrip Bevis fans somewhat - and then there are Jews (since we are talking about Hebrew Bible too) and, quite a few interested agnostics and others. And if 'religious projects' should be chased elsewhere, what about mathematics projects or biology, or schools for that matter. (We now have articles on individual cricket matches BTW). The question is whether individual verse articles are a good way to organise verifiable NPOV Biblical info, not whether that info is notable. --Doc (?) 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See my comments above about Wikicities. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I get about 30 from Revelation alone; 1:8, 6:2, 6:4, 6:5, 6:8, 8:1, 12:7, 12:9, 13:1, 13:16-18, 16:16, 22:13 being particularly notable. --Carnildo 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely. Carnildo, I think those Revelation verses are not individually notable, but rather belong in the article on Revelation. (I signed up 20 June 2005.) KissL 09:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think there are more than 20 or 30 notable verses. (Voted moved here.)   — J I P | Talk 17:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree, no more than one or two dozen individual verses are notable. The scholarly analysis of Bible verses that SimonP wants to report on can be done book by book, not verse by verse. --Angr/undefined 05:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) The notable articles are very few. As Kiss said, other verses fits perfectly into chapter or group articles. Nova77 20:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm voting here, although my feeling at the moment is that a good number is probably a little more than a "vast minority", but still less than a "small minority" (i.e. 50-80). I would be willing to change to a "small minority" if someone will come up with a conservative selection of say 120 verses that they think are notable on their own. I would suggest a good dictionary of allusions would be a very good place to start. Then add some of the verses that have been regular inspirations for painters and for classical musicians. On the other hand, any analysis of a large number of Bible verses should be in WikiBible or other Sister project. Blank Verse   ∅  12:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *Comment: I voted in the section above, but my reasoning probably means my vote belongs here. "Vast minority" is contradictory, don't you think? "Tiny" might have been clearer. Not moving my vote for fear of messing things up, but as I stated above, I agree with proposition that very few, less than 50, should have individual encyclopedia articles. DavidH 18:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I interepreted "vast minority" as tongue-in-cheek. --Angr/undefined 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) None. Nabla 14:41:19, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
 * 2) Radiant_ >|<  07:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) This section raises the question "to whom?!" Tomer TALK  05:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Being a biased Christian, I see most, if not all, the verses notable in one way or another. However, I understand that this is simply too much and would create too big of a precedent for other works. There are many other resources online that examine chapters and verses individually and I think it would be worth it to set up a large repository of links to those within a few articles, but back on topic: I do not think anyone should bot there way through the entire Bible, however, if someone has a particular interest in a certain chapter or set of verses, and is willing to devote the time and energy to gather resources to present researched work, then this should be allowed. The argument of notability for a subject like this is too debatable if you ask me, but I am just one voice in the abstain section. Hansamurai 15:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a stupid poll - would it help us if we decided what proportion of bands, or websites were notable? If we agree that verses can be included if notable, then there is no way of getting round considering each article created on a verse on its merits - and looking to see whether a case can be made. I prefer articles on books of the Bible, split if they grow too long, but many verses have a significance beyond their cannonical context. How many? I don't know until someone presents the significance of a verse. --Doc (?) 22:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically, the purpose of this section of the poll is to determine whether SimonP's claim that everyone voting "only notable verses deserve articles" still includes the vast majority of verses, or whether this was an inaccurate claim.     07:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, but how does it help to settle this dispute? Supposing we agreed that 746 Bible verses were 'notable', would that tell us whether Matthew 1:9 was one of the 746? No. We'd still have to look at the individual article and judge its case on the merits. So, if you and SimonP diagree, fine, but do you need a poll to settle an individual arguement, which in the end will be fairly irrelevant to the operation of Wikipedia. --Doc (?) 18:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It would establish that SimonP (or me) going away and creating 30,000 or even 3,000 verse articles was inappropriate behaviour.     18:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the whole purpose of this poll is not about Bible verses, but rather about whether or not someone's actions are in/appropriate? That's not what I read at the top...  If you have a dispute with another editor, there are methods in place to handle that:  please see WP:DR.  If what you say is true, then it doesn't require a poll:  creating a poll on one subject to see whether or not someone else' actions are in/appropriate is, in a word, "inappropriate".  You can't just create a poll about whether or not blue-green algae are blue or green, and then halfway through say "what you're actually voting on is whether or not Grandma Moses was a good artist" (especially not if you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously).  Cheers, Tomer TALK  08:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am saying that the whole purpose of this poll is in discussing whether the creation of the articles listed at Bible verses/existing is appropriate in an encyclopedia or whether it is not and continuing to create such articles is something to be disapproved of.     08:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not being completely familiar with all 30,000+ verses and the huge body of research and literature surrounding them, it's difficult to say. Also, I agree with Doc's point above. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
 * 2) Notability is much to vague a concept to attach specific numbers to. - SimonP 22:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Not sure what relevance the concept of notability has to any of this. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mainly to dispute simon's claim that the people voting "only notable verses should have articles" refers to most bible verses rather than only a few.     06:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) IMO the question is not worded in a way that will glean helpful answers. Wyss 18:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. — Bcat  ( talk •  email ) 23:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What, you'd want to list all 30 000 verses and have people decide each one's notability or non-notability?   — J I P | Talk 04:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what we do for bands, music groups and even individuals - and there are more than 30,000 of them. When someone creates an article, we judge it, at the time, on its merits. --Doc (?) 09:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If I understood you correctly, you mean that when an article about a verse comes along, we decide right there whether it's notable. We don't create a list of all the 30 000 verses and then weed out the non-notable ones. Right?   — J I P | Talk 09:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously --Doc (?) 10:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it should be handled like bands are. Maybe we should create an inclusion guideline like WP:MUSIC, but, in the end, I think we need to let VfD decide. — Bcat  ( talk •  email ) 16:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So what should be done about the existing ones listed at Bible verses/existing ? Are they all notable, or only some of them?     18:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Briefly looking at those verses, I think that most (if not all) of them are not notable. IMO, there a probably about 100 verses that deserve articles of their own. That said, I agree with Doc that this poll is unnecessary. It doesn't matter how many verses are notable, just which ones. — Bcat  ( talk •  email ) 18:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What should happen to them? Exactly the same thing that happens to anything else. Deleted if there is a consensus on VfD (but I suspect there is not). If short, or overlapping content, then someone go ahead and merge (I'd certainly support chapter merges in most cases)- if they have sufficient NPOV verifiable content, then keep. They should be treated like any other article (the only reason the list Bible verses/existing exists is because you created it). I'm for merging, but, given that we have articles for individual primary schools and county cricket matches, I can't see what the big deal is. --Doc (?) 18:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It's really hard to say what verses are notable, or how many there are. I believe that such statements are inherently PoV. I agree with Bcat that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a well-written, NPoV, factual, and encyclopedic article can be written about a bible verse, passage, chapter, or book, then I am in favor of letting that article remain. I'd rather not rely on some pre-defined declaration that such verse, passage, chapter, or book is non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with what Doc has written above; this has to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, as with most other things. --Uppland 12:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Case by case. Just as pokémons. — David Remahl 06:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't think you could say, ahead of time, "There are X many notable verses in the Bible." I think that what we have to do is wait until all of the articles are written, then count them, and then we'll know. — Ravenswood 16:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
... belongs on the discussion page.

Motion to close
Withdrawn, obviously no support for this --Doc (?) 14:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This 'voting' is going nowhere - and reaching little but the most obvious consensus (i.e. only notable verses are notable). We have had a pseudo-policy attempt through VfD, and now a poll, without a proper idea of what it is about - or whether we need an agreement at all (see further Tomer's comments at Wikipedia talk:Bible verses). I move that this poll be closed and archived forthwith, that a proper open discussion may happen, perhaps beginning with 'is there a problem with the current situation' then 'if so, what should be done' - and some attempt at consensus. Btw Polls are evil.

Proposed: --Doc (?) 10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Seconded: Tomer TALK  10:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

For

 * 1) I closed this poll unilaterally earlier and still feel this vote is deeply flawed. - SimonP 12:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Close it as soon as reasonable. Blu Aardvark | (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Just silly bureaucracia. Almafeta 17:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly how long does the vote to end voting stay open? The only end date we have is August 22nd. We would need to vote on when this vote about closing the poll should close, if we want it to close earlier.     07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So, we're not only voting to end voting, we're also voting on when to end the vote to end voting? This is getting absurd. — Bcat  ( talk •  email ) 15:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The voting should stay open forever. Someday this page will have thousands of names on it. Ravenswood 16:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
You will of course realise the irony - I'm asking you to vote to end voting. But then, as the good Baroness Thatcher once said, referenda are 'a device to defeat democracy'. --Doc (?) 10:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

She then held a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. 07:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC) No, actually she didn't - it was negotiated by Majot and there was no referendum. --Doc (?) 13:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC) You mean major? ( ! | ? | * ) Yes - typo --Doc (?) 00:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

22nd August

 * 1)     07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Francis Davey 17:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments
This reductio ad absurdum of -Ril-'s is a breach of WP:POINT. However, I'm happy to withdraw the motion if there is not obvious support in 48 hrs (which I concede looks unlikely} --Doc (?) 23:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Withdraw and close.  This is preposterous.  I'm beginning to think the entire thing should be cancelled as a bad-faith disruptive move on -Ril-'s part.  If this nonsense doesn't end soon, it may be necessary to move to some sort of dispute resolution with this.  The same pattern shows up in -Ril-'s ongoing inability to work constructively with other wrt the whole Authentic Matthew fiasco.  Tomer TALK  03:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * While -Ril-'s parody of his own vote-vote-vote attitude is indeed absurd, it doesn't seem truly disruptive in any way as it requires no cleanup, so I'd hesitate to label it a violation of that guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:38, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

=When should the vote on the vote on when the motion to close should be closed itself be closed
=

==22nd August
==
 * 1)     07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

==15th August
==

==8th August
==

==1st August
==

==Abstain
==

title: Wikipedia:Bible verses


text:
Talk:Anti-Semitism in Poland

From VfD

 * Anti-Semitism in Poland, the article has very little to do with a significant topic. It is just a laundry list of hate crimes in the past 5 years, and has nothing about any truly significant events. It should be deleted and replaced with an article on the History of the Jews of Poland. Danny 13:21, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be raw data, rather than information. Might be better to redirect to Poland for the time being. Martin 13:49, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * An article on the history of the Jews of Poland would not be a bad idea. However, it should include the information (in some form) that we presently have in the current article. It is an important topic that much has been written on. RK 14:39, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's more journalistic than encyclopedia. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:03, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * My instincts are that the US State Department (or any country's equivalent) should not be treated as NPOV and their text should not just be copied and pasted in. I'm sorry if this offends some American Wikipedians. Secretlondon 21:12, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but yours is a valid pointof view. Like all of our articles, this one is not set in stone. If you believe that it contains a POV problem, please feel free to mention it, and/or make an edit to fix things. Just be aware that many Wikipedians use the public domain text from a number of US Government websites as starting material for an article. RK 21:20, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * I think pasting in is fine, as long as some NPOVing is done. If you feel this biases Wikipedia towards the US POV, perhaps you should convince your country's equivalent to open their content as generously as the US does. We'll be happy to add public domain content from any other country's state department as well, as long as it has some reasonable basis in fact, but currently the vast majority of states prohibit us from doing so. --Delirium 06:23, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)
 * An article of this name would be fine if it contained a balanced article. At the moment it is pathetic.  Why do we need to know that in 1998 someone threw a rock through a window?  The only way to fix this article would be to trash most of what is there and start again. --Zero 01:09, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve Lirath Q. Pynnor

Moved to Religious_freedom_in_Poland.

Further comments should be made at Talk:Religious_freedom_in_Poland.

Revert
Reverted because user:Piotrus has made substantial changes to the article during VfD voting. Please refrain yourself from doing so until the voting is concluded. In my opinion material related to Polish anti-Semitism from anti-Semitism article should be relocated to History of the Jews in Poland and other existing articles rather than here creating a precedence (the only article on wiki about anti-Semitism in a specific country). --Ttyre 10:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a point that this would make old votes partialy invalid, although I am not sure if there is a policy (should this page be protected, perhaps?). In future, do copy the reverted material to talk, so it can be possibly reinstated after the vote has ended. My version (in nowiki tags) below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten
{main|Anti-Semitism}}

Anti-Semitism in Poland has a long history. Persecution of Jews took place both before, during and after the Second World War.

Desiring to emerge from the Dark Ages as a prominent European power, Poland took notice of the typically advanced education of Jews (particularly their literacy) and their competence in financial management. In 1264, King Boleslaus V of Poland legislated a charter for Jewish residence and protection, hoping that Jewish settlement would contribute to the development of the Polish economy. This charter, which encouraged money-lending, was a slight variation of the 1244 charter granted by the King of Austria to the Jews. This charter was also adopted (with variations) in Hungary, Lithuania, Bohemia, and Silesia. While Jews were not granted the same degree of protection as other citizens, and while Jews were excluded from privileges afforded Christian merchants and burghers, the charter decreed by Boleslaus V precipitated a major improvement for Jews over conditions in twelfth century Europe. The charter included recognition of legal testimony of Jews, fines for harming Jews or Jewish property, prohibition of blood libels, and equal commercial rights. (The charter rights were unfortunately not always observed by everyone. One such incident occurred in Poznań in 1399, when the local rabbi and thirteen other members of the Jewish community were tortured and burned at the stake after being accused of "Host desecration" ). Due to the attractive opportunities Poland offered for Jews, as well as extreme persecutions in much of western Europe, a burgeoning Jewish population developed in Poland. Jews were allowed to open Yeshivas and had a measure of independence regarding judging religious legal cases. By the sixteenth century, Poland had become the center of European Jewry and the most tolerant of all European countries regarding the matters of faith. It was the only country where Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and even Muslims coexisted peacefully.

At the onset of the seventeenth century, however, the tolerance began to give way to increased anti-Semitism. Elected to the Polish throne King Sigismund III of the Swedish House of Vasa, a strong supporter of the counter-reformation, began to undermine the principles of the Warsaw Confederation and the religious tolerance in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, revoking and limiting priviliges of all non-Catholic faiths. In 1628 he banned publication of Hebrew books, including the Talmud. Acclaimed twentieth century historian Simon Dubnow, in his magnum-opus History of the Jews in Poland and Russia, detailed:
 * "At the end of the 16th century and thereafter, not one year passed without a blood libel trial against Jews in Poland, trials which always ended with the execution of Jewish victims in a heinous manner..." (ibid., volume 6, chapter 4; "thereafter," in the above quote, refers to no later than 1918, when Dubnow's work was published).

In the 1650s the Swedish invasion of the Commonwealth (The Deluge) and the Chmielnicki Uprising of the Cossacks resulted in vast depopulation of the Commonwealth, as over 30% of the ~10 million population has perished or emigrated. In the related 1648-55 pogroms led by the Ukrainian Haidamaks uprising against Polish nobility (szlachta), during which approximately 100,000 Jews were slaughtered, Polish and Ruthenian peasants often participated in killing Jews (The Jews in Poland, Ken Spiro, 2001). The besieged szlachta, who were also decimated in the territories where the uprising happened, typically abandoned the loyal peasantry, townsfolk, and the Jews renting their land, in violation of "rental" contracts. The Jewish Encyclopedia explains why Jews were targeted in the Cossack massacres:
 * "The Jews increased rapidly in the Little Russian territories at the beginning of the seventeenth century. They farmed not only the taxes, but even the revenues of the Greek Orthodox Church. At every christening or funeral the peasants had to pay a fee to the Jew. The lords were the absolute rulers of their estates, and the peasants their dependent subjects. When a lord or any other member of the nobility leased his villages or estates to a Jew, his authority also was delegated to the latter, who even had the power to administer justice among the peasants ("Yewen Mezulah," p. 2a). The extravagant life of the Polish landlords, who spent most of their fortunes abroad, frequently placed them in pecuniary difficulties, and their Jewish tax-farmers were often forced into exactions against the advice and warnings of the wise leaders of the Council of Four Lands, and the Jews of the Ukraine often suffered grievously for the sins of individuals of their race. The uprising of the peasants in the Ukraine has been ascribed by most historians to their oppression by Jewish leaseholders, as well as to the privileges granted to the latter by the kings and nobles of Poland. Recent historical research, however, indicates that the Jews living in the cities, particularly in those of the Ukraine, were not afforded the protection enjoyed by other citizens, and moreover were excluded from the privileges granted to the Christian merchants and burghers (Antonovich, "Monografii po Istorii Zapadnoi i Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," i. 188). Notwithstanding this, the Jews managed to gain control of the commerce of the country, as is evidenced by the complaints of the Christian merchants of Lemberg, Kamenetz, Kiev, and many other cities, shortly before the Cossack uprising ("Archiv Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," v., part i., xxxiv. 134, xl. 156, cxxi. 323; "Starożytna Polska," 11, 1023, 1369; "Sbornik Mukhanova," p. 192; Antonovich, l.c. p. 189). It was the combined opposition to the Jews of the urban and the peasant populations that made it possible for Chmielnicki to arm the entire country against them within so short a time. "

Historian Jacob Rader Marcus summarizes the situation as follows:
 * "In 1654 neighboring Russia turned against Poland, a year later the Swedes poured in from the north, and all these groups, including the native Poles, ravaged and massacred defenseless Jewish victims throughout the land" (The Jew in the Medieval World, 1896).

The Eyewitness Chronicle detailes:
 * "Wherever they found the szlachta, royal officials or Jews, they [Cossacks] killed them all, sparing neither women nor children. They pillaged the estates of the Jews and nobles, burned churches and killed their priests, leaving nothing whole." (Eyewitness Chronicle)

The deathtolls of Chmielnicki uprising, as many others from the times of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, vary. Historian Subtelny, in his acclaimed Ukraine: A History (p.127–128), notes:
 * "Jewish losses were especially heavy because they were the most numerous and accessible representatives of the szlachta regime. Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jews—given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures—were killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history. Estimates of Jews killed in the uprising have been greatly exaggerated in the historiography of the event. According to B. Weinryb, the total of losses reported in Jewish sources is 2.4 million to 3.3 million deaths, clearly a fantastic figure. Weinryb cites the calculations of S. Ettinger indicating that about 50,000 Jews lived in the area where the uprising occurred. See B. Weinryb, "The Hebrew Chronicles on Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Cossack-Polish War," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1 (1977): 153-77. While many of them were killed, Jewish losses did not reach the hair-raising figures that are often associated with the uprising. In the words of Weinryb (The Jews of Poland, 193-4), "The fragmentary information of the period—and to a great extent information from subsequent years, including reports of recovery—clearly indicate that the catastrophe may have not been as great as has been assumed."

At the other extreme, some modern academic sources place the Jewish death toll in the hundreds of thousands. One source, The Jew in the Modern World (Oxford University Press), states that the uprising "left in its wake hundreds of thousands of of Jewish dead, and, according to one witness, 744 Jewish communities destroyed." While the Jewish Encyclopedia considers the figure of 744 destroyed communities "unreliable," it views authoritatively "chronicles" which state that approximately 500,000 Jews were killed.

In the aftermath of the Deluge and Chmielnicki Uprising, many Jews fled to the less turbulent Netherlands, which had granted the Jews a protective charter in 1619. From then until the Nazi deportations in 1942, the Netherlands remained a remarkably tolerant haven for Jews in Europe, excedeeing the tolerance extant in all other European countries at the time, and becoming one of the few Jewish havens until nineteenth century social and political reforms throughout much of Europe. Many Jews also fled to England, open to Jews since the mid-seventeenth century, in which Jews were fundamentally ignored and not typically persecuted. Historian Berel Wein notes:
 * "In a reversal of roles that is common in Jewish history, the victorious Poles now vented their wrath upon the hapless Jews of the area, accusing them of collaborating with the Cossack invader!... The Jews, reeling from almost five years of constant hell, abandoned their Polish communities and institutions..." (Triumph of Survival, 1990).

Throughout the sixteenth to eighteenth century, many of the szlachta mistreated peasantry, townsfolk and Jews. One rabbinic responsum from the 1680's details an account of a Polish suzerain taking hostage the community rabbi and Jewish council for the sake of capturing a Jewish girl. A Polish peasant had claimed that the girl had agreed to marry him, despite her vehement denials (Beit Hillel, Rabbi Hillel ben Naftali Hertz). Threat of mob violence was a specter over the Jewish communities in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the time. On one occasion in 1696, a mob threatened to massacre the Jewish community of Posin, Vitebsk. The mob accused the Jews of murdering a Pole. At the last moment, a peasant woman emerged with the victim's clothes and confessed to the murder. One notable example of actualized riots against Polish Jews is the rioting of 1716, during which many Jews lost their lives. Later, in 1723, the Bishop of Gdańsk instigated the massacre of hundreds of Jews. John Toland, a prominent Enlightenment figure in Ireland, wrote in 1714 that Polish Jews "are often exposed... to unspeakable Calamities."

The legendary Walentyn Potocki, a Polish nobleman who converted to Judaism, is said to have been burned by auto da fe on May 24, 1749. In 1757, at the instigation of Jacob Frank and his followers, the Bishop of Kamianets-Podilskyi forced the Jewish rabbis to participate in religious dispute with the quasi-Christian Frankists. Among the other charges, the Frankists claimed that the Talmud was full of heresy against Catholicism. The Catholic judges determined that the Frankists had won the debate, whereupon the Bishop levied heavy fines against the Jewish community and confiscated and burned all Jewish Talmuds. Polish anti-Semitism during the seventeenth and eighteenth century was summed up by Issac de Pinto as follows: "Polish Jews... who are deprived of all the privilages of society... who are despised and reviled on all sides, who are often persecuted, always insulted.... That contempt which is heaped on them chokes up all the seeds of virtue and honour...." (Issac de Pinto, philosopher and economist, in a 1762 letter to Voltaire).

On the other hand, it should be noted that despite the mentioned incidents, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a relative haven for Jews when compared to the period of the partitions of Poland and the PLC's destruction in 1795.<!--Regarding primary sources documenting 18th-century Poland, some historians have raised concerns about the existence of 18th-century accounts that were spread by partitioners, who these historians claim used propaganda in an attempt to create a false image of the PLC as a backward, anarchical, and dangerous country. This was ostensibly done to justify dissolution of a major European country and change in the European balance of power.

Anti-Jewish sentiments continued to be present in Poland throughout most of the 20th century. One notable manifestation of these attitudes includes numerus clausus rules imposed, with government support, by almost all Polish universities in the 1930's. As the Journal of Modern History details:
 * "In Poland, the semidictatorial government of Pilsudski and his successors, pressured by an increasingly vocal opposition on the radical and fascist right, implemented many anti-Semitic policies tending in a similar direction, while still others were on the official and semiofficial agenda when war descended in 1939.... In the 1930s the realm of official and semiofficial discrimination expanded to encompass limits on Jewish export firms... and, increasingly, on university admission itself. In 1921-22 some 25 percent of Polish university students were Jewish, but in 1938-39 their proportion had fallen to 8 percent."

These sentiments started to diminish only with the end of communist rule in 1989. Anti-semitism in Poland in 21st century is marginal (1 major violent anti-Semitic incident in 2004) compared to countries with Jewish populations many times the size of Poland's, such as France (96 incidents), Canada (52 incidents) or Germany (50 incidents). Polish government approved a National Action Program against racism in 2004.

Polish Catholic Church widely distributed materials promoting the need for respect and cooperation with Judaism. Still, according to recent (June 7, 2005) results of research by B'nai Briths Anti-Defamation League, Poland remains among the European countries (with others being Italy, Spain and Germany) with the largest percentages of people holding anti-Semitic views.

VFD
On 10 July 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. See Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland for a record of the discussion. – ABCD✉ 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anti-Semitism in Poland


text:
Kontinent

Kontinent was an émigré dissident journal which focused on the politics of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Founded in 1974 by writer Vladimir Maximov,  its first editor-in-chief, it was published in German and Russian and later translated into English. A Norwegian edition, Kontinent Skandinavia, was published from 1979 to 1981.

Its Editorial Board at various times included Raymond Aron, George Bailey, Saul Bellow, Józef Czapski, Robert Conquest, Milovan Djilas, Alexander Galich, Jerzy Giedroyc, Gustaw Herling-Grudzinski, Eugène Ionesco, Arthur Koestler, Naum Korzhavin, Mihajlo Mihajlov, Ludek Pachman, Andrei Sakharov, Alexander Schmemann, Ignazio Silone, Joseph Brodsky.

This initial issue featured a debate between Andrei Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn regarding Solzhenitsyn's Letter to the Soviet Leaders (Письмо вождям Советского Союза ).

Current status
Kontinent continues to be published in English and Russian by Russia House. Currently, the editorial is located at Moscow, registered in the committee on the printed materials of the Russian federation, registration license no. 014255. The Russian version has been available online since 1999.

title: Kontinent


text:
Finn Gustavsen

Finn Gustavsen (22 April 1926 in Drammen – 20 July 2005) was a Norwegian socialist politician active from 1945 to the late 1970s. He was noted for his uncompromising style and willingness to take contrarian stands.

Early life
Gustavsen was born into a middle-class family in Drammen, where his father supported the family as the manager of the local cooperative store. Gustavsen started out his career as an industrial worker in Horten and Holmestrand. He became active in the Norwegian Labour Party youth movement (Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking) in the fall of 1945 after he earned his university entrance certificate in a year.

The year after, he was hired as a reporter for the regional socialist paper in Vestfold, moved on to the national youth periodical for the Labor Party, then was part of a radical group that formed a foreign affairs journal called Orienteering. Although most vocal on foreign policy issues related to the arms race and what the editors generally termed "power bloc politics," the magazine became the platform for a left-wing faction within the Labor Party. This opposition was met with threats - sometimes carried out - of expulsion from the party.

Later life
In 1961, Gustavsen left the party and formed Sosialistisk Folkeparti and was immediately elected into Storting, the Norwegian Parliament as a representative from Oslo. He served as an elected member for the Sosialistisk Folkeparti (SF) (1961–1965 and 1965–1969) and it successor Sosialistisk Venstreparti (1973–1977). When the Labor Party lost its majority in Stortinget, Gustavsen's party became necessary for Labor Party governments to survive votes of no confidence.

Gustavsen decided to turn out the Labor government of Einar Gerhardsen in 1963 over the so-called Kings Bay Affair, ushering in a short-lived but symbolically important non-socialist government under John Lyng.

Although Gustavsen's personality was strongly associated with his party, he made a considerable effort to resist that association. He opted out of reelection twice and had to be persuaded to resume leadership roles. He was a staunch opponent of Norwegian membership in the European Union and resisted the alliance with the Norwegian Communist Party. He risked criminal prosecution for his disclosures of Norwegian plans to build Loran C facilities in support of submarine warfare in Norwegian waters.

In 1977 he resigned from politics and accepted the position as the Norwegian Development Agency's representative in Mozambique. He also resumed his journalistic career, acting as an editor for the party newspaper Ny Tid.

title: Finn Gustavsen


text:
User talk:PhilipW~enwiki

PhilipW user talk: welcome to the room

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called PhilipW. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name PhilipW~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:PhilipW~enwiki


text:
Taime Downe

Taime Downe (born Gustave Molvik on September 29, 1964) is an American musician best known as the lead singer of the 1980s hard rock/glam metal band Faster Pussycat.

Life and career
In high school, Downe formed a band named The Bondage Boys, and going under the stage name Vaun Hammer, he released a song with this band titled "The Loser" on Northwest Metalfest, a compilation featuring 10 Seattle-area bands. Sometime after this, he left Seattle for San Diego and then moved on to Los Angeles.

Downe worked for Retail Slut in Hollywood and ran the stage lights at the Troubadour. Magnus Walker of Serious Clothing accidentally got his start when, walking into Retail Slut, Downe asked where he had got his pants. Although Walker had bought them in Hollywood for less than $10, he replied England, and Downe asked him to source 8 pairs at a price of $25 to sell in the store.

In 1985, he formed the band Faster Pussycat. The five-member band released their debut album in 1987.

Faster Pussycat were signed to Elektra Records and sold over 500,000 copies of 1989's Wake Me When It's Over. They toured with Y&T, Ace Frehley, Alice Cooper, Mötley Crüe, KISS, David Lee Roth, and others. Their next album Whipped!, released in 1992, was less popular. The band broke up that year, with Downe's moving to Chicago to work with Pigface. Downe also sang backing vocals on Skid Row's 1992 cover of the Ramones' "Psycho Therapy".

Downe returned to Los Angeles shortly after and put together the industrial rock band The Newlydeads for which he wrote and produced. Around 1998, he opened his own club, named The Pretty Ugly Club, with co-owner JD Terziu, and the club achieved the same level of success as The Cathouse, the club Downe had run with Riki Rachtman. Taime has also been the promoter of other clubs in Los Angeles, such as Thunder Pussy and Pretty Pussy. He also was the DJ at Metal Skool with Josh Richman as the MC.

The Newlydeads released a remix CD titled Re-Bound, and in 2001, released Dead End. The same year, Downe reunited for a tour with original Faster Pussycat members Brent Muscat and Greg Steele joining him. The re-formed band opened for Poison in 2002.

In 2006, he released Dreams from a Dirt Nap, a Newlydeads best-of album, in May, and the Faster Pussycat album The Power and the Glory Hole in July.

title: Taime Downe


text:
The Water Is Wide (book)

The Water Is Wide is a 1972 memoir by Pat Conroy and is based on his work as a teacher on Daufuskie Island, South Carolina, which is called Yamacraw Island in the book. The book sometimes is identified as nonfiction and other times identified as a novel.

Yamacraw is a poor island lacking bridges and having little infrastructure. The book details Conroy's efforts to communicate with the islanders, who are nearly all directly descended from slaves and who have had little contact with the mainland or its people. He struggles to find ways to reach his students, ages 10 to 13, some of whom are illiterate or innumerate, and all of whom know little of the world beyond Yamacraw. Conroy (called Conrack by most of the students) does battle with the principal Mrs. Brown over his unconventional teaching methods and with the administrators of the school district, whom he accuses of ignoring the problems at the Yamacraw school.

A film adaptation, titled Conrack, was created in 1974, starring Jon Voight. A Hallmark Hall of Fame TV movie titled The Water Is Wide, starring Jeff Hephner and Alfre Woodard, was made in 2006.

title: The Water Is Wide (book)


text:
Donald Duck (orange juice)

Donald Duck is the name of a brand of frozen and refrigerated orange juice by the Florida's Natural Growers agricultural cooperative, which was known as Citrus World from 1969 to 1998, and before that as the Florida Citrus Canners Cooperative. The brand was introduced in 1940 and is the cooperative's oldest brand. Donald Duck, one of Walt Disney's cartoon and comic book characters, is the mascot for the brand. He appears on the packaging and marketing, and in its advertising. For many years Donald Duck also appeared on the juice plant's water storage tank in Lake Wales, until 1998, when the cooperative decided to remove the Donald Duck logo as part of its name change and rebranding.

Legal issues
In 1987 the brand was the subject of a lawsuit between Citrus World and its rival Tropicana Products, which alleged that the Donald Duck "Fresh 'N Natural" brand was being marketed deceptively as fresh squeezed juice when it was actually made from concentrate.

title: Donald Duck (orange juice)


text: Category:Airline tickets

title: Category:Airline tickets


text:
Wikipedia:Bible verses/existing

 * Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
 * Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
 * Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
 * Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
 * Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
 * Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34
 * John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18, and John 20:19

title: Wikipedia:Bible verses/existing