So it was explained to him twice that Wikipedia uses majority consensus yet he continued to attempt to edit the article?

"Tempted to win simply through sheer tenacity, I edited the page again"

ChuDogg: Guy sounds like an insufferable douche.

A tad strong, but I agree. Maybe we should create a Wikipedia page for him?

I haven't touched a real encyclopedia since the 8th grade.

NkThrasher: Author doesn't understand how Wikipedia works...

More like "Author sees where Wikipedia's editors end up defending the publication of things that are patently false, talks about how their policies and procedures are therefore broken, and the usual suspects chime in to defend the indefensible."

News at 11.

GreenAdder: NowhereMon: Wiki has turned into the internet's version of an HOA. The editors are a bunch of petty tyrants. Jimmy Wales knows this is a problem, but I don't think he know how to fix it.

My favorite is when an admin parks on a story and says he "owns" it. Nobody better edit that article on David Lee Roth's "Eat 'Em and Smile" album, because some guy from Picayune MS is the definitive source on that album. And nobody - even if it's the musicians, producer, engineer, or Diamond Dave himself - better challenge that guy's authority.

I have run into this more than a few times that I've just given up trying. The last was on a subject that I'd just had a peer-reviewed publication with. Mostly I added to the article and I also deleted one line that had suddenly become statistically and logically impossible with the new data available. Well not only were all of my changes reverted, my 5 new references added to "further reading" were deleted too. And it was done within minutes. Not even enough time to read if the new references and citations were correct.

Why would people want to contribute if some admin has it on e-mail alert that one of "their" articles was edited (BTW I hope it's an e-mail alert, otherwise that guy really has no life), and you have to have a discussion about each point you want to change. I just don't have the time for that crap.

People still go to wikipedia?

dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true. There are tons of books written by fringe crackpots out there (not necessarily saying that this professor is one), and I'd be interested to hear the other side of the story from another historian. Also, while the professor undoubtedly knows more about this specific topic than the editors, the editors can't really be faulted for enforcing a policy that works 99 times out of 100.

Came in here to say this. You come up with a theory that contravenes what is in the text books you teach from and expect the world to instantly fall at your feet? It's great that you can site all of your evidence, but you're basically asking them to change a point in their article from A to B based on one source, which is you (your references to your evidence are sources supporting your claim not supporting your change), while they have a dozen different sources claiming the point as A?

My god, man, get over yourself. Can't decide if I should include attentionwhore.jpg or welcometofarkcryingguy.jpg.

/I'll just settle for slashies

Yukon Callmeal: NkThrasher: Author doesn't understand how Wikipedia works...

More like "Author sees where Wikipedia's editors end up defending the publication of things that are patently false, talks about how their policies and procedures are therefore broken, and the usual suspects chime in to defend the indefensible."

News at 11.

they are probably wikipedia editors.

...and that is why, staying online for days on end, without regard for sleep, food, or personal hygeine, reading TvTropes.

/crack on the Net

NkThrasher: In order to remove the evidence claim entirely it would have to be a situation where the evidence claim was as a result of a minority of sources and that the sources that opposed it were of significantly higher value than the minority.

Yes but you didnt read down to the next paragraph where it states:

That was curious, as I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress. I also noted one of my own peer-reviewed articles

The actual transcript from the trial should be all the proof that is needed.

Wiki is wrong on this.

NkThrasher: Knara: Because Wikipedia should strive to be better, not be satisfied with being just a mindless conglomeration.

Better by what measure?

You seem to have the same misplaced expectation that is the actual problem. Wikipedia isn't there to be a factual reference for the "truth", it is there to be a collection of sourced information on a subject, whether or not it represents the 'truth' is irrelevant as long as it accurately represents the information that is available and able to be sourced.

By that measure, it is rather good in a general sense.

Yes, because what the world needs is one centralized place where you can get all your factual and non-factual information through one interface.

We already have that, it's called "The Internet"

Wikipedia should strive to be better.

steamingpile: The actual transcript from the trial should be all the proof that is needed. Wiki is wrong on this.

He went about it all wrong though. He shouldn't have replaced the text but appended the new information to the next. Something along the lines of, "However, the court transcript (ref) shows that evidence was indeed given...". Just deleting the consensus and replacing it with his research was wrong as well. So was continually re-editing it after he was informed of his mistake.

Mouser: Ministry

Came for the obvious Orwell / Ministry of Truth reference. Kinda surprised it took this long.

I tried to correct a blatant error contained in an article about a park that is located about a half mile from where I live. The correction that I made could be verified by simply looking at the picture on the wiki page about the park. The correction was changed back by some self important wiki editor. Attempts to cite sources including the picture just the right of article was not enough to convince the page's editor that the correction was just and proper.

I think many of the page editors are people who created a large amount of the content and take personal offense when someone corrects their errors. They would rather the page contain well known errors than to admit that they are simply wrong.

dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true. There are tons of books written by fringe crackpots out there (not necessarily saying that this professor is one), and I'd be interested to hear the other side of the story from another historian. Also, while the professor undoubtedly knows more about this specific topic than the editors, the editors can't really be faulted for enforcing a policy that works 99 times out of 100.

What you said is so wrong that it clearly shows you didn't understand the article.

First he isn't expressing opinion (look at his edits if you don't believe me), he was citing primary sources for facts.

Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.

The miracle of Wikipedia is that this shiat doesn't happen much more often.

Noticeably F.A.T.: pseydtonne: //An encyclopedia has people that take responsibility for incorrect information.

Does anyone actually check encyclopedias? I know it's kind of assumed, but does it actually happen?

Yes, there are people who do. That's why entries on specific items will often change revision to revision. Heck, a study showed that Wikipedia, deliberately defaced pages and all, had fewer mistakes on average than traditional printed encyclopedias.

The trick is that while unpaid, volunteer, and often anonymous, there are millions of potential authors, and somebody generally stands up. While with traditional encyclopedias the author might be professional, but not a 'world expert' on the subject, and has limited time and budget to get the section out.

Wikipedia has some problems, but that's hardly unknown - the most recent edit I did was to a wind power page that had the state producing about 20 times the electricity per year as it theoretically could if 100% of it's wind turbines operated at 100% of capacity for a year. I went to check the cite, assuming typo, dead link.

So I looked up the current references( ~3 years newer), put the updated cite links and figures in. I deleted a couple statements that weren't in the new cites, added a couple that were. Nobody's said a peep.

pedobearapproved: Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.

He jumped the gun. The next step is to convince his peers that he's right. When there's a significant degree of consensus (or even building consensus) among experts in his field, then (and only then) is it appropriate to update the encyclopedic entries with the new consensus (or the controversy.)

I go to wikipedia for the talk pages.

/popcorn anyone?

The main issue is with WikiPedia's Reliable Sources (new window) guidelines :

+"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible...Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves..."

This puts legitimate scholars and subject matter experts like Messer-Kruse on the outside, and secondary source hunters, "Wikipedians" in control of the articles.

In the talk page (new window) of the article, one commenter writes: "When Einstein proved in an experiment his theory was right, the scientific community reversed their positions even though he was in numerical inferiority. Why should Wikipedia be based on Colbert's standard of truthiness instead?"

Mr. Colbert, please get Jimmy Wales back on your show to explain how this can happen!

Shabash: I love Wikipedia, but they should have some way to recognize and value the contributions of legitimate experts.

That goes against the premise of Wikipedia: that the sum of the knowledge of a million idiots is greater than the knowledge of a small number of experts.

Clearly that premise is false in many cases, and that should be borne in mind when reading the articles. They often give a good overview (especially when the topic has no political value), but Wikipedia is often slanted / misleading / false. Basically it reflects the consensus view of the subset of people who have nothing better to do than obsess over Wikipedia.

If you wants real facts, then go to primary historical documents, scientific papers, etc. or other peer-reviewed work (as opposed to idiot-reviewed work).

Oh dear, I'm not sure where to start.

Beginning at the well documented thesis that if you show something to 10 people, they'll largely not agree with each other on what they saw, will embellish the results or delete inconvenient bits to suit their preconceived notions. Just try the 'whisper game' for an easy proof to the fact that most people cant reliably repeat what they just saw or heard.

Then you augment this incompetence with people who have agendas and want people to think a particular way about something. And of course, the winners/survivors write their own version that suits them, or eliminates things that dont. Read some random history books about world war II or some other significant event, only get the original texts from other countries. I think you'll find significant differences.

Next you have the persistent alteration of materials over time as people mess with it.

So realistically, the problem here isnt wikipedia. Its that some people think that anything, even something written by a collection of eyewitnesses or well researched experts, might actually be somewhat close to what happened.

So what was written on wikipedia about this event is probably wrong. So is the account that the editor came to realize. The truth is probably some completely different thing.

God's Bathroom Floor: Well this page takes on new layers of irony, then.

is your user id in reference to that Atmosphere song?

Talondel: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a peer-reviewed journal. It collects the majority opinions of experts and cites to them. It does not and cannot weigh the veracity of opposing views and decide which are "right." To do that would require that Wikipedia employ experts capable of performing an adequate peer review on every possible topic, which would be impossible. Instead, Wikipedia cites to sources that are peer reviewed.

If he wants his views on the issue cited on the page, instead of deleting the portions he considers to be inaccurate, he needs to add a line stating something along the lines of "Recent research in the area suggests an alternate viewpoint" and then cite his article. Wikipedia may or may not let that kind of edit stand, but a cite that provides additional information is much more likely to stand than an edit that deletes an old citation and replaces it with a new one that disagrees with it.

So to the author I say 1) Learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a peer reviewed journal and 2) learn how to work within the confines of the system you are attempting to utilize. Both of those should be easy to do for someone with a Ph.D.

FormlessOne: That's the gist of it. They're not telling him he can't write a minority opinion - they're telling him he can't replace the majority opinion with his own. He doesn't like that, because he's right, after all, and so he's throwing a fit.

You missed the part where the sources he cites are direct - "including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" - and thus more credible than other cited sources to the contrary. Wikipedia chose to ignore the validity of his sources and go with "majority rules" rather than hard facts.

I'm guessing most of this drama is in articles about things like music bands, politicians, and video game systems. I've never seen any kind of drama or stuff in the animal, dinosaur, cryptozoology, or military hardware articles.

dualplains: Came in here to say this. You come up with a theory that contravenes what is in the text books you teach from and expect the world to instantly fall at your feet? It's great that you can site all of your evidence, but you're basically asking them to change a point in their article from A to B based on one source, which is you (your references to your evidence are sources supporting your claim not supporting your change), while they have a dozen different sources claiming the point as A?

My god, man, get over yourself. Can't decide if I should include attentionwhore.jpg or welcometofarkcryingguy.jpg.

/I'll just settle for slashies

Where did you pull that BS from that I bolded?

He says in the article that he cited primary sources for his initial edits, Wikipedia won't use primary sources. So his book serves as a compendium of those primary sources in a secondary source that Wikipedia will use.

Just because it's the consensus of previously published research doesn't make it factual. If new reliable primary sources come along and contradicts the previously believed ideas of what happened, those deserve to be included. If you have a dozen different secondary sources saying something is a certain way that might mean that, *gasp*, all those sources used the same more limited primary source material and probably quoted from or used older publications that also are limited by their primary sources as a guide (especially if it's a general American history book). Or in net speak MOAR citations doesn't mean MOAR correct.

/am I the only one that read the article?

pedobearapproved: I have run into this more than a few times that I've just given up trying. The last was on a subject that I'd just had a peer-reviewed publication with. Mostly I added to the article and I also deleted one line that had suddenly become statistically and logically impossible with the new data available. Well not only were all of my changes reverted, my 5 new references added to "further reading" were deleted too. And it was done within minutes. Not even enough time to read if the new references and citations were correct.

Why would people want to contribute if some admin has it on e-mail alert that one of "their" articles was edited (BTW I hope it's an e-mail alert, otherwise that guy really has no life), and you have to have a discussion about each point you want to change. I just don't have the time for that crap.

Yeah, I think that's a lot of the problem. People revert changes without any regard for whether they really should be reverted.

Firethorn: So I looked up the current references( ~3 years newer), put the updated cite links and figures in. I deleted a couple statements that weren't in the new cites, added a couple that were. Nobody's said a peep.

Some pages aren't being defended by the south end of a northbound horse and the system works as it should.

My speed skating coach, silver medalist in the 1960 Olympics, died some years back, and though I had the date of death, they would not accept it.

If you look at any entry, you find many nagging mistakes: Exempli Gratia: the article on Rasputin refers to "Tsaritsa" Alexandra, when in fact she was a Tsarina. "Tsarina" means "Empress," while "Tsaritsa" means Empress' daughter, or Princess.

They also get numerous other facts wrong.

bugcrusher: In the talk page (new window) of the article, one commenter writes: "When Einstein proved in an experiment his theory was right, the scientific community reversed their positions even though he was in numerical inferiority. Why should Wikipedia be based on Colbert's standard of truthiness instead?"

I prefer the comments immediately preceding that:



/Don't banninate me, Gwen!

SomethingToDo: The miracle of Wikipedia is that this shiat doesn't happen much more often.
bugcrusher: The main issue is with WikiPedia's Reliable Sources (new window) guidelines :

+"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible...Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves..."

This puts legitimate scholars and subject matter experts like Messer-Kruse on the outside, and secondary source hunters, "Wikipedians" in control of the articles.


Yup, you can't cite your own research unless you are an anonymous guy who blogged something somwehere, then you can cite that as evidence just fine. Ran into a bit of that myself a long time ago, I went and found other sources with the information but by that time the admin already disagreed with me and he gets the final word.

jingks: He went about it all wrong though. He shouldn't have replaced the text but appended the new information to the next. Something along the lines of, "However, the court transcript (ref) shows that evidence was indeed given...". Just deleting the consensus and replacing it with his research was wrong as well. So was continually re-editing it after he was informed of his mistake.

I think they would have deleted that as well, wiki is wrong on this and it has been stated time and time again how they push certain viewpoints off their wikipion pages, they are never to be taken as factual just as a reference to find the full truth.

Anyone who gives them money is a sucker.

NkThrasher: Knara: Because Wikipedia should strive to be better, not be satisfied with being just a mindless conglomeration.

Better by what measure?

You seem to have the same misplaced expectation that is the actual problem. Wikipedia isn't there to be a factual reference for the "truth", it is there to be a collection of sourced information on a subject, whether or not it represents the 'truth' is irrelevant as long as it accurately represents the information that is available and able to be sourced.

By that measure, it is rather good in a general sense.

Not when they only represent the information that supports a particular case and refuse any entry with evidence for a different case.

CSB time:

I was reading wikipedia's page on Rolfing. It cited some research that was negative. So went and looked at the abstract of the research that was cited (its all I could get without getting past the pay wall) and added a sentence that was quoted from the abstract itself. The sentence was reverted so I went and requested an explanation. I was told they would look into the paper and they asked if anyone had the full research. I told them I was quoting the available research abstract from the link already cited. Didnt matter. Retarded.

Fact. Wikipedia is neither a wiki nor an encyclopedia. Discuss.

here to help: He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book... and THEN caused problems for the admins... and THEN tried it again 2 years later... and is NOW publicly freaking out about it.

You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?

Relevant edits (in case anyone is curious):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

None of them look too giant.

The problem on Wikipedia is not just the pompous, protectionist attitudes of editors. It's also the complete lack of diversity among the people who heavily edit the site.

This contributes significantly to one-sided perspectives on the site. And it also limits knowledge. Credible sources get dismissed by people who have no knowledge of the subject; worthless sources fail to be evaluated critically. Topics get moved for deletion all the time by basement dwellers who have no farking clue but assume that because it's irrelevant to them, it's irrelevant to everybody. And meanwhile, there's a book-length Wikipedia page for practically every Pokemon.

It should be noted that ""History is written by the victors" is a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, but nobody really knows who first said it?

A coworker of mine once changed the link of our "competition" to ratemykitten.com on a page listing various media outlets in our market. Stuck for years.

Mew (Pokémon)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mew
Sugimori151.png
National Pokédex
Mewtwo - Mew (#151) - Chikorita
Series Pokémon series The Jesus Chronicles ft. Jesus
First game Pokémon Red and Blue
Created by Shigeki Morimoto, Asia
Designed by Ken Sugimori
Voiced by Kōichi Yamadera (Mewtwo Strikes Back)
Satomi Kōrogi (Lucario and the Mystery of Mew)

Mew (ミュウ Myū?) is one of the fictional species of Pokémon creatures from Nintendo's and Game Freak's multi-billion-dollar[1] Pokémon media franchise-a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards, and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. It is considered a legendary Pokémon in the Pokémon video games and anime.

Mew was added to Pokémon Red and Blue by its creator, Game Freak programmer Shigeki Morimoto, as a secret character. As such, its presence has been surrounded by rumors and myths, which contributed to make the Pokémon franchise a success. Mew cannot be obtained in the games except from Nintendo promotional events, or glitching in Red, Blue, and Yellow.

Mew's first film appearance was in Pokémon: The First Movie as a main character alongside Mewtwo. The movie revealed that a fossilized Mew hair, found in the Guyana jungle by a team of scientists, was used to create Mewtwo, a genetically enhanced Mew clone. Mew later appeared in Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew as a main character alongside Lucario; the backstory of the film revolves around Mew's mysterious history and how it came to be so powerful. Pokémon: The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon had a mirage Mew appear as a main character in the movie who helped Ash and friends try to defeat the Mirage Master.
Contents
[hide]

[edit] Concept and creation

Unlike other characters in the Pokémon franchise, Mew's development was not overseen by Ken Sugimori, but by Game Freak programmer Shigeki Morimoto. Morimoto programmed Mew into the game secretly, as a prank amongst the staff just prior to its release in Japan, intending it to be a Pokémon only Game Freak staff members would know about and be able to obtain.[2] Mew was added at the very end of the development of Pokémon Red and Green after the removal of debug features, freeing up just enough space to add the character despite being told not to alter the game any further at this point. Though not intended by the developers to be obtainable, due to a glitch, players were able to encounter it.[3]

In the spring of 1996, Game Freak president Satoshi Tajiri used the Japanese manga journal CoroCoro Comic as an experimental exhibition of Mew and distributed the first cards of it for the card game as free giveaways,[4] which surprised many at Game Freak, including Morimoto.[2] Due to the success of the experiment on April 15, 1996, Game Freak announced a contest to publicly release Mew to 151 winners.[5] Tajiri described using Mew to create hype around an "invisible character" within the game and to keep interest alive in the title and create rumors and myths about the game passed around by word of mouth,[6] which resulted in increased sales for the game.[7]
[edit] Design and characteristics

Like Mewtwo, Mew is a Psychic-type Pokémon with high stats.[8] Morimoto designed it as a pink, feline-esque Pokémon with large eyes and a long, thin tail that broadens at the end.[9] Its skin is covered with a layer of short, fine hair.[10] Its DNA combines the genetic composition of all existing Pokémon species;[11] the game states that scientists within the game view it as being the single ancestor of all other Pokémon.[12] It is shy and rarely seen by humans.[9][11] It is a legendary Pokémon[13][14] from the first generation, along with Articuno,[15] Zapdos,[16] Moltres,[17] and Mewtwo.[18] Mew's number in the National Pokédex is 151, the last of the first-generation Pokémon,[8] with 150 being Mewtwo[19] and 152 being Chikorita. In Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, the player can find journal entries in the Pokémon Mansion on Cinnabar Island stating that Mew was discovered deep in the jungles of Guyana, South America, on July 5 (the year is not specified),[20] and named on July 10,[21] and that it "gave birth" to Mewtwo on February 6.[22] The name mew is based on the onomatopoeia of a cat's cry, meow.[8]

In the video games, it is possible for Mew to learn any move that can be taught.[23] Other than Ditto, it is the only Pokémon that can transform into other Pokémon using the "Transform" technique.[8][9] In the anime, it is capable of flight, teleportation, shapeshifting, summoning giant pink bubbles of psychic energy (which serve various purposes such as closing itself in for protection, acting as a cushion, or simply for Mew's amusement of bouncing on),[24] and rendering itself invisible.[11]
[edit] Appearances
[edit] In the video games
This screenshot shows the player encountering Mew in Pokémon Red or Blue via a glitch.

Other than using cheating devices, Mew could not be obtained within the Pokémon video games except via glitches in Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow and Nintendo promotional events until My Pokémon Ranch was released.[8] One of the glitches involves exploiting programmed events, such as walking into the view of a Trainer, then using a Pokémon's "Fly" or "Teleport" move to escape the area right before the Trainer notices the player, and continuing to walk into a new area in the game. This changes some of the number values in the game's memory-similarly to how MissingNo. is found-and starts a battle with a wild Mew.[25]
[edit] In the anime

Mew's first major appearance in the Pokémon anime was in Pokémon: The First Movie where it served as one of the main characters. It was believed to be long-extinct and "the legendary and rare 'most powerful Pokémon ever'".[13] After years of research, a scientist uses a recombination of Mew's DNA to create Mewtwo,[18] a genetically enhanced clone of Mew who becomes the film's main antagonist.[13] The backstory of Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew revolves around Mew's mysterious history and how it came to be so powerful.[26] In the movie, a Pokémon "family tree" is shown;[27] the first Pokémon on it is Mew, and the last is Ho-Oh.[26]
[edit] In the manga

Mew appears in the Pokémon Adventures series of Pokémon manga. Mew, also known as the "Phantom Pokémon" in the manga, appears in the first chapter when the criminal organization Team Rocket tries to capture it. Pokémon Trainer Red also tries to capture it, but he is easily defeated by Mew.[28] In following chapters, it is revealed that Team Rocket wants to have Mew's DNA to finish the creation of Mewtwo, and Red and Trainer Green join forces to avoid it being captured.[29][30]
[edit] Cultural impact
[edit] Promotion and merchandising
Players who won Mew through Nintendo contests and events received a certificate with the identification number for their game.

Mew's presence as a "secret" Pokémon contributed to the success of the franchise.[4][7] A promotion in the April 1996 issue of CoroCoro Comics called the "Legendary Pokémon Offer" offered the 20 winners the opportunity to send their cartridges in for Nintendo to add Mew to their games. Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata attributes the success of the games to this contest. Since then, the weekly sales of Red and Green had began to match its previous monthly sales, and then becoming three to four times larger.[3] At Nintendo promotional events soon after the release of Pokémon Red and Blue, players could have it downloaded to their games.[31] Many fans of the game bought cheat devices only to obtain it.[9] Mew is also one of the Pokémon featured in the 1998 painting on the All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400.[32] In September 2006, in celebration of the release of Lucario and the Mystery of Mew and Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team, players with a copy of Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, FireRed, or LeafGreen could go to a Toys "R" Us store to download it for free.[33] Included in the DVD of Lucario and the Mystery of Mew was a promotional Mew trading card.[27]
[edit] Critical reception

Due to its balanced statistics and ability to learn any move that comes from a Technical or Hidden Machine, Mew is regarded as one of the best Pokémon in Red, Blue, and Yellow.[34] Studies on the impact of fictional characters on children, such as those in Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon, have noted Mew as popular with younger female children who tend to be drawn to "cute" characters; Mewtwo in comparison was described as a polar opposite, popular with older male children who tend to be drawn to "tough or scary" characters.[35] The book Media and the Make-believe Worlds of Children noted a similar comparison, describing Mew as "child-like and gentle, combining characteristics of power and cuteness" and emphasizing the importance of the contrast for children between it and Mewtwo, and its role as a source of appeal for the character.[36] IGN listed Mew as one of the best Psychic types, alongside Mewtwo, Alakazam, and Starmie. They called it a good contender to Mewtwo, as well as an unpredictable Pokémon due to its ability to use any TM or HMs, items that teach Pokémon attacks.[37]

The revealing and distribution of Mew through organized events has been noted as a major reason for the series' success in Japan,[4] with the Japanese contest receiving over 78,000 entries, exceeding their initial expectation of 3000.[5][38] However, Computer and Video Games magazine criticized the exclusivity of Mew to Nintendo events as one of the worst aspects of Pokémon, noting that through the use of cheat devices such as the Pro Action Replay to access Mew, they were rendered obsolete.[39] UGO.com listed Mew sixth on their list of "The 25 Awesomest Hidden Characters".[40] Authors Tracey West and Katherine Noll called Mew the best Legendary Pokémon and the fifth best Pokémon overall.[41]. The High School report said that "Mew looks like a little monkey"

-------------------------------------------------------

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force [1] is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal.

The AUMF has also been cited by the administration as authority for engaging in electronic surveillance in ACLU v. NSA without obtaining a warrant of the special Court as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

[edit] Text of the AUMF
[snip]
[edit] Congressional votes
[edit] House of Representatives

On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).
[edit] Senate

On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).
[edit] AUMF as partial justification for Guantanamo military commissions

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the majority of the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the AUMF overrode Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, writing that there was nothing "even hinting" that this was Congress' intent.[2]
[edit] AUMF as partial justification for National Security Agency's eavesdropping program

The AUMF was also the basis of one of the principal arguments advanced by the Department of Justice in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, namely that the AUMF implicitly overrode the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[citation needed]