Talk:Christian evangelist scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] POV changes

I reverted the religious POV additions of 75.22.163.171. Jamiem 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed actually to more -

On November 3, 2006, Ted Haggard, who actually was more regarded as a pastor rather than as a televangelist, resigned his leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals[3] and temporarily stepped aside as pastor of his church

This is part of a larger and older context, including Aimee Semple McPherson and the like. Perhaps something worthwhile could be developed here, but I don't think the televangelist scandals are much different than the Evangelist scandals (like McPherson).

[I always thought of Paul (Saul) as the original (tele)evangelist, traveling from town to town collecting money for "those poor saints back in Jerusalem" and meeting lots of hookers. All the hatred in the new testament starts with Paul. Jesus was a lover.]

What?! What prostitutes does Paul meet up with? Where are your sources? I have read the entire New Testament and haven't come across mention of that. Given the Paul spends half his time getting beaten up ship wrecked or imprisoned his life style is nothing life the Jet-setters of this century. By the way it was Jesus who hung out with the prostitutes.

A psychological article on the whole sin-forgiveness cycle acted out in the large by Swaggart et al, perhaps from a Transactional Analysis perspective, would be welcome to me at least. the librarian

[edit] A Healthy View of Televangelism

It's important to remember to not throw the baby out with the bath water. True televangelism is merely a tool to reach those who would never walk into a church with the message of Jesus Christ. We must also remember that it is expensive to produce and broadcast a television program. How would it be accomplished without monetary resources?

The NPOV of my edit only refered to the phrase "created by several media networks" While it would be nice to see more than just a mention of the scandal, without any detail for the reader, just the assertion that it was created by the media is as POV as if someone entered "created by his own actions" or other such. --GeorgeOrr 02:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the addition of "created by several media networks" was because the Benny Hinn Ministries responded to the scandals with a rebuttal. The scandal was easily proven false.

[edit] Melissa Scott

I'm not sure who keeps putting that there (well, I am, since its the same IP every time), but they seem hell-bent on publishing their agenda. Rather than deleting that section again, I put the POV-section template on it. I'd be a lot more comfortable if reputable sources were cited. --Cooleyez229 16:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources are Melissa Scott herself on live, recorded public broadcasts and public records in the State of California and Nevada, as referenced. If you have facts supporting a different point of view, post them with your references. Your personal dislike of facts in public records is not a valid reason to delete information based on your assertions of a lack of neutrality. Your comfort is not the issue here. True and correct information is.
OK, I understand where you're coming from with this. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned in thinking an encyclopedia should keep it at a NPOV always. And maybe I'm a bit new-fashioned in needing links to sources so that a random person who comes across this, if they're curious enough, can study further about it. One other thing: wouldn't it be better to just post all this in the article for Melissa Scott instead of having it in three different places? --Cooleyez229 06:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As a reminder, there is a separate article for Melissa Scott. Furthermore this is not a soapbox. What may be considered a controversy to some might not be one to others. If it was a controversy worthy of being reported on CNN then I could see it going here. Until that day arrives, refrain from putting it here. --Cooleyez229 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't one. Melissa Scott (pastor) was deleted and salted without much at all in the way of discussion, as if it were an WP:OFFICE action. Its strange that a visible (if not prominent or highly regarded) television minister (late late night anyway) would not have any article at all, as if she weren't notable. Certainly she is, if only because she's on the telly; more so because she's.. divinely communicative.
But because of certain minor career issues from her past, it seems that any treatment of her life on WP violates stricter interpretations of WP:BIO, or at least raises the fear of certain legal reprisals. It's not a big deal, and certainly not something that needs to be covered up (certainly doesn't qualify as a "scandal"), but the real issue is why Wikipedians are participating in the apparent censorship? -Stevertigo 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant?

Isn't the term "Christian televangelist" redundant?—Wasabe3543 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "televangelist"

A simple definition: "Evangelism through religious programs on television. Such programs are usually hosted by a fundamentalist Protestant minister, who conducts services and often asks for donations." Hovind and Haggard are not televangelists. They do appear on TV, but they're not evangelizing through telecasts. Please do not put all Christian religious scandals on this page--there's a separate page for religious scandals, and Haggard and Hovind can appear on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz414 (talk • contribs)

Well, neither is Oral Roberts a televangelist. However, I moved the page to "Christian evangelist scandals" so they will be included. The list you speak of is only for "sex scandals" relating to religion. This includes those and others. Arbusto 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't even make any sense. There's an identifiable series of televangelist scandals of the 80s that makes a category like this relevant. Changing the header to "Christian evangelist" isn't anything distinctive at all, except that Haggard and Hovind can now be included on it. I'm refering to [Category:Religious_scandals|religious scandals], on which Haggard already appears and is not limited to sex scandals. This should be reverted until there's a justification for an "evangelist" category instead of "televangelist." But now that you've changed the category, it can't be so easily reverted. Please revert. Zz414 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I know about the religious scandals category because I created it. If you wanted to keep this for those two notable 1980s scandals there would be no point to the article. This new title expands the subject matter to build an informative article. Arbusto 00:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, does Ted Haggard qualify as an evangelist - one whose main duty is to lead others to put their faith in Christ through the sharing of the good news of his death for our sins and his resurrection? Ted Haggard is an evangelical, for sure, a Christian leader, and a political activist, but I never saw his ministry as being evangelism. Regarding the Oral Roberts spot, I thought the point of the $8 million was to send out interdisciplinary missionary teams, not just to raise money. God allegedly told Oral Roberts that Oral had to train up and send out the teams, or else God would consider his mission on earth finished and call him home (to heaven), and in order to make that vision a reality, Oral said he needed $8 million. You may find a popular media sound bite where Oral says he needs $8 million or God would take him home, but I think that is a tiny snatch which is misquoting Oral Roberts by missing the context of his message as a whole.

[edit] Neutrality Issues

This article seems more of a laundery list than actual article. It contains no development of ideas. Before addressing the NPOV issues surrounding it, it would be more appropriate to develop the events listed here, including any controversy that exists regarding the events. If the whole article is in need of serious work, it would be inappropriate to debate the finer points of NPOV, until the larger article is much better developed.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You will need to address the NPOV issues concerning the article on this Talk page if you wish to continue having the disputed neutrality tag prepended to the article. -198.88.216.101 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I too agree. This is more an opinion piece rather than an encyclopedia article. There are other non-Christian scandalists too but are they listed up in the same manner. We can discuss the controversies of these people under their names. But this article title must be deleted. Yes, they are hypocrites. There is already enough sensationalism and especially about who's in bed with who. We don't need to stoop down to that trashy level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.106.212 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Radic

I moved this off the article page: Pastor Randall Radic of the First Congregational Church of Ripon, California pleaded guilty in 2006 to embezzlement. Radic hopes to receive some leniency during sentencing because he will testify about a murder confession of a fellow inmate.[1]

Radic seems to be a minor preacher and is getting a small amount of press coverage. He doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of the other examples. JoshuaZ 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have several problems with JoshuaZ's comments. First, the page is about scandals, not just "major" scandals. Second, since when is CNN/AP national coverage considered "a small amount of press coverage"? Third, how is the "scale" of each scandal judged? Dollar amount? Jail time? Sex peccadilloes? Fourth, what exactly is a "minor" preacher? For the record, Darlene Bishop is simply being sued over comments in a book, no criminal actions are alleged. On the other hand, Randall Radic has already spent 6 months in jail for embezzlement. Also, Radic is gleefully bragging about his excesses on his blog, and attempting to sell his "tell-all" memoirs. Jacobst 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me. JoshuaZ 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Hey, folks. The photos are overlapping sections and don't have captions, unless you mouseover. Someone know how to fix this? (Ethan Mitchell, forgot to sign in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.142.45.241 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Major edit

I’m sorry to do this, but I’ve removed the bulk of the article, as it was inappropriate, and stood as a synthesis of information. Simply listing the details of a group of Christian evangelist scandals is not an appropriate substitution for an objective, well-rounded encyclopedia, nor is such detail appropriate for an organized, informative list. I have taken the names themselves, alphabetized them and grouped them into a “see also” section, although I think it could use a better name. Obviously, a lot of work still to be done, but removing the material that did the most harm to the article was the first step. I understand that you may have objections, and if so, please discuss it here on the talk page so that we can come to a consensus. Calgary 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this edit. TerriersFan 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now the Afd is over

We should work on improving the article per the discussion. Bulking up the intro section and adding some of the sources mentioned in the Afd would be a good start. I would suggest that we do that first before trimming down the list section, as suggested above. Thoughts? Artw 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the bio summaries because of the BLP concerns that were expressed during the AfD and I'm sure that's right. What is now needed is to develop, effectively a new article, that covers the topics in a sourced fashion. Any examples can name the individuals, provided they are sourced, but they shouldn't detail their behaviour. Further they should weave the individuals into the article not simply as part of a 'hit list'. TerriersFan 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I should add, as the stubber and keep voter, it's perfectly fine to talk about a rename, and even a recontexualization, provided its in the context of improving the article. Like I suggested at the AFD talk, it should'nt be hard to come up with a shortlist of equivalent alternates, and people can discuss the merits of these. Regards -Stevertigo 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
See straw poll below. Artw 03:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be cited

AFD or no AFD, any negative article about a living person/living people that is unsourced can be deleted by any admin at any time under CSD G10. (Any admin would be fully justified in deleting this article right now and if the problem is not rectified, I intend to delete it at some point in the future.) Every claim about these people needs to be sourced and there needs to be a reason included that it is a scandal. For example, I removed the sentence about Pat Robertson running for President ... I have no idea why that would be a scandal. --B 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your fact tags seem a little scattershot there. Just a few cites taken from the relevant articles should take care of it, we don't need dozens.
As for "See also", the linked articles should have their own cites, no need to duplicate them here. If the linked articles have no sources regarding scandals then that should be dealt with on the relevant page, and the link here should be removed. Artw 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made some progress with this - mostly by cutting and pacing references from the relevant articles - it might be nice to get some that fit the text better if anyone has some time. Progress has been made on this article but there is a long way to go. Artw 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There's really no need to have most of these in the 'see also' section when they're already covered in the main text body. The ones remaining seem to have significant reference to some sort of 'controversy/scandal'. Kuru talk 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have a great memory. when Pat Robertson ran for the presidency it caused a scandal indeed. The media got hold of that one because of the American ideal of seperation of church and state. clay70
But how is that a scandal? When Kennedy ran for President, people said that a Catholic shouldn't be President ... but the "scandal" was their bigotry, not Kennedy's religion. There's nothing inherently scandalous about a minister running for President and if the media called that a scandal and there wasn't something else to it, then the media is bigoted. --B 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll - name change

It's been suggested in the afd that the name of the article be changed. Please indicate which of the suggested names you would prefer (or suggest yuour own) and give a rational. The options are Christian evangelist scandals / keep it the same , List of Christian evangelist scandals, disgraced televangelists, televangelist scandals or something else of your own choosing. Artw 03:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Christian evangelist scandals / keep it the same - Televangelism seems too narrow, and calling the article a list would seem to proclude it from expanding on cause, perceptions, motivations etc... "Disgraced" just seems wrong. Artw 03:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten

To be honest this article does not "seem" to be written like an independant view of the topic. I would suggest steering away from what seems to be personal views here and simply attempt to report what the media did say about each evangelist, for example find good solid reports and go from there. That seems to be the fair method here. Even articles on criticism on people or groups may be designed to appear that the person/groups could be innocent or guilty but the reader can judge the evidence for themselves. Also just mentioning only what was done "wrong" while ignoring what good the person/group did could easily sway a particular bais. Obviously each evangelist has their own article and these criticisms are mentioned on their pages so I'm not sure where this "scandal" page is going BUT if its going to be linked from say the pentacostalism page it needs to be a NPOV and structured fairly. Is there a page on tele-evangelists? It could be a featured as a section on a page such as that to bring balance but on its own I'm not sure where its going. Agree or disagree? Darrenss 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Sourcing is Needed

Some serious sourcing is certainly in order for this strangely written topic. Definition of "scandal" (see Scandal in Wikipedia): A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. Clay70, in particular, seems to think a scandal is anything he/she perceives as improper. Maybe, Christianity itself is improper to Clay70. Come on, if you're going to have this topic then properly source real credible scandals and political/religious cover-ups. Don't just add names because you don't like a person and seek to discredit them. That is against Wikipedia policy. Facts&Truth 02:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the lead in or the "See Also" list here? Artw 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the "See Also" list, but also the lead in section could use more sourcing. Not all readers have heard media reports about these scandals and without sourcing all the incidents mentioned the article loses some of its credibility. Facts&Truth 14:32, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I've added so Citation Needed tags to some paragraphs in the lead that I beleive would be strengthened by a cite, but TBH most of it is pretty well cited already.
I disagree about the See Also list - that's up to the articles linked to. Though if those articles don't mention a clearly defined scandal they shouldn't be linked to, and if such a scandal is not cited the article itself should receive some attention per WP:BIO.
I did revert the removal of Angley, which I now beleive I should have left standing: There is no "scandal" there as such, though what he is doing seems incredibly foolish and dangerous.
I'm not sure calling that section "See also" is completely appropriate TBH. It encourages vague links like that. Something more hard and fast like "Evangelists involved in scandals" would be better. If we did that it might be appropriate for each one to have a cite, though we shouldn;t start reproducing chunks of the main articles. Artw 18:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as Ernest Angley goes, you mentioned "what he is doing seems incredibly foolish..." First of all, this is part of the problem; people think he's doing this or that (or "seems to be doing...") based on biased reports. What I've heard first hand from his mouth is teaching people not to engage in sex outside of marriage, to keep yourself until marriage and this can help a person avoid AIDS and other STDs (same advice given by most health organizations). He also promotes everyone going to their doctor for check-ups and medicine. He only states that if God does heal someone of AIDS the person should go back to their doctor for verification. He is only promoting that people bring medical documentation with them of their proof that they are HIV negative when they want to give a testimony. All these things I'm mentioning are, of course, being left out of some articles and so-called blogs by a few reporters and bloggers that only want to stir up controversy (controversy sells papers). No one, including myself can argue with a person who claims they were healed of AIDs, has medical documentation to prove it and their doctor told them they don't need medicine anymore (and why would I want to argue that as I'm happy for them no matter how it happened). There are developing medical reports of people mysteriously becoming HIV negative, which are being investigated by world health authorities and if a Christian wants to contribute that to God's mercy then why stop them. Angley has never told anyone to stop taking medicine, he says that's up to the patient and the doctor. So, there's a lot less controversy over this matter then some would like you to believe. People need to do their own investigations about people without relying on the media as a whole. It's best to read what a person writes themselves to get a better understanding where they stand on issues. Angley has an autobiography called "Hurry Friday" that I have read and it was quite revealing. It's part of the Library of Congress and available to the public. I'm not trying to "promote" him or his Christian beliefs. I just took this as one example of how editors can really do more justice for Wikipedia. Most people even now think Wikipedia is full of unsourced, unfactual content. But, in reality it has a lot to offer as long as we do enough investigating before adding our "facts" to any article. I do agree with your other assessments. Facts&Truth 22:35, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Facts&Truth are you're objections based upon your own person experiences? You said people decide things based upon bais reports and that people should go and see for themselves? If people have nothing to go by, then they should and ought to do their research based upon what reports are available, it is not necessary to have to "go and see for themselves". There are many contraversial groups and people well studied from many different angles (for or against). Fact is people do make judgements from reports/articles and saying a report is bias really isn't good enough reject that as a reliable source. People must always be given the right to judge for themselves, that's what freedom of information and free speech is all about and public opinion is a powerful tool, thats just the facts of our day and age. Wikipedia is about giving people the right to weigh up the evidence for themselves by being as neutral and unbais as possible. Like I said before, the whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch and take on another title, the subject itself may just be the problem eg - "Scandel".Darrenss 01:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, at no time in my above statement did I state or suggest to "go and see for yourself", nor are my previous statements just based upon my own experiences, but on over two decades of working in international media as a trained professional. I only suggested reading material that an author publishes to get a better understanding how they stand on issues. If we are to try and state what we think a person said or has done, then it is reasonable to actually read what the person has actually written or hear what they've actually said. If those things are available to the public (which in Angley's case they are) then those are certainly a more reliable source then what someone else thinks they heard about someone or what they might have read about what someone thought they heard (hearsay). The best reporters are those who report what a person has actually said or publically stated (written or orally). Then the reader can make up there own mind whether they agree with the person's statements or not. If a reporter gives their own opinion in the article then it becomes an editorial. Yes, we all read and investigate articles about an individual, event or other subject. But, what I have stated is that we should not introduce unsourced material into a wikipedia article. Furthermore, just because we may read a report or blog on a subject does not mean we can automatically include that as part of our basis of a negative or positive review of someone. When I say biased blog or report I mean an opinion not based on truth. It is an editors responsibility to only state what are known facts and if those "facts" are more of a personal feeling, hearsay or opinion then, according to wikipedia standards, it is to be removed. When I state a report is biased I mean to say it's not based on actual facts but on someone's own perceptions or even lies. Yes, free speech should be protected and cherished, but if I can lie about someone and call that "the truth" in a wikipedia article then this information outlet becomes garbage. That's why when it comes to articles on people (living or dead) wikipedia has very strict rules regarding what can be said about them. Opinions have to be stated as opinion and not merely introduced as fact. Now, as far as Angley goes, there simply wasn't a factual reason to state that there is scandal in his ministry. Therefore, as I'm sure you agreed, it was removed. And yes, I agree with you about the fact that this whole article needs a rewrite. Facts&Truth 09:35, September 5, 2007 (UTC)

Facts&Truth yes I agree with your comment above. For some reason I misunderstood your comment before. I would hope what you said is true that information on wikipedia are correctly understood to be either opinion or fact and stated for that purpose and properly sourced for verification. Most definately for an article that so far is only presenting a negative point of view because of the subject matter.Darrenss 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the Oral Roberts University scandal? Is it too recent to add here? It sounds like it includes embezzlement, and something perhaps a bit too scandalous to mention (the underage male references). Or maybe it needs to be not mentioned until some type of verdicts are handed down? I just happened to stumble into it, and looked for it here, and stumbled into this. I'm no expert on any of these subjects, so I defer to any who are. Sofocleus —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs rewrite

If this article is not going to be deleted someone really needs to clean it up and make it readable and useful. In its current state it isn't even good as a referer. The smilodon 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What improvements do you suggest? Artw 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a very generic statement. What exact problems are there and how should they be solved in your opinion?--Svetovid 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well for starters - the bulk of the article is just a list. Lists aren't encyclopedic, and as someone has pointed out in the discussion above, in neutrality issues, it doesn't contain any development of ideas. Frank Houston and Robert Tilton are living people, and the comments about them are unreferenced. The use of humour and irony is totally unacceptable in an encyclopedic entry, for example in the section on Richard Roberts: "Roberts wrote a book titled He's the God of a Second Chance. No second chance has been offered to Roberts as yet." There is lots of assertion of fact - some of it referenced, some of it not - and no attempt to hold all the facts together into a coherent whole. Is there a case for saying that Christian Evangelist Scandals are a particular phenomenon, or trend, or something, and the article informs us about that, and the list of scandals helps show us that trend/phenomenon over the last century? If there isn't - then why are we collecting this "hit list" of people together? The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases page attempts to see how the series of incidents were related phenomena, and address things like how it impacted the church, society etc. This article does none of that - it's just a list of people who've messed up - that's not really adding to the world's knowledge at the moment. Somebody needs to articulate a coherent case for how this is one particular social-historical trend, and then weave the article together. If that requires original research, then, the article needs to be deleted.Petemyers (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless the article adds some new information, it could be reduced to a category that links these various crooks together. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a pretty good idea, there's actually a lot of diverse "movements" and organisations covered by this particular list of individuals, so I can't immediately see why they've been put together. The statement that they aren't "mainstream" is subjective anyway - "charismatics" (using the term loosely) make up a substantial portion of the evangelical Christian world, and so who is and isn't mainstream is hard to define.Petemyers (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The common thread, obviously, is that they were hypocrites. But Christianity has no monopoly on hypocrisy. They are just more obvious in a mostly-Christian nation and thus are of some interest. But as I say, if the article adds no new information, then a simple categorization should be sufficient to link them together for someone who's interested in the subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checklist of who should be included

The following is a checklist of the sort of person who appears in this article:

  • There must be a "scandal" - this usually means something financial, sexual, "fantastical" or otherwise disreputable.
  • They must be Christian.
  • They must be a Protestant (Child Abusers within the Roman Catholic church would appear here otherwise)
  • They must be "High profile" - that is, their actions were reported widely in the general media (a local minister who runs off with another woman is not notable)
  • The scandal must not involve theology only - all high profile Oneness Pentecostals would appear otherwise.
  • The scandal must not involve "cult-like" behaviour or claims of emotional manipulation - otherwise the article will be too big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Salient Oversight (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Oral Roberts' 900 ft Jesus and his "God will take me home" claim fits under the "fantastical" form of scandal. Peter Popoff's use of a secret transmitter fits under the "otherwise disreputable" form of scandal, though the fact that he raised money from his ministry could be considered scandalous as well.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

This list only includes high-profile people from within American protestant non-mainline churches.

Is there any real reason for excluding scandals involving evangelicals affiliated with "mainline" Protestant churches? Evangelicals within mainline churches may be in the minority, but there are millions of them. Some have schismatic tendencies, but not all. NTK (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)