Talk:Axis of evil

Axis of Medieval

This is actually a very clever and subtle joke, and should stand as a valid example of parody. A defining characteristic of medieval European diplomacy was the role religion played, particularly the idea of Universality: power plays always involved appeals to God, to rightneousness. Late in the renaissance, diplomacy changed to a system of non-religious national interests build in large part by Cardinal de Richelieu. (See Henry Kissenger's book Diplomacy for a fascinating analysis of the evolution of the modern nation state.)

Now President Bush is in fact a self-declared born-again Christian and does seem to be guided by his religious views. He certainly presents himself that way, though in a more conciliatory fashion than say Pat Robertson. "Axis of Medieval" is a fair parody since it points out a similarity between medieval diplomacy, where religious justification was vital, and President Bush's foreign policy, allegedly guided by the president's religious views. Phrased like that, would the President, at least in private, deny turning to God for guidance on foreign policy? And that's the point the joke makes. Vincent 08:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vincent , usage of the term "evil" is not limited denominationally to born-again Christians or faith-wise to Christians per se. Rather it is a generic term which when used in Bush's speech betrayed no evidence of born-again Christian bias. Therefore, the "medieval parody" is a needlessly argumentative, tangental reference to something that exists only in the mind of a speculative few. Frankly, if "Axis of Medieval" was actually well known enough to have the bona-fide cultural currency you say that it does, it would not need to be explanied as being a being "Christian". Also, your entire historical frame of referrence does not apply here. Those Medieval European leaders who did have a form of faith (and you cannot posibly say thay all uniformly did), if they were Christians, were for the most part Roman Catholics of a much different ilk than others of today. To crudely lump modern born-again Christians in with practitioners of a far different denomination (faith,even), is gross anti-Christian bigotry in my view. This would be like trying to say that modern Hassidic Jews are the same as the ancient Israelis who sacrificed animals, etc. Your comments, I feel, indicate that you may have an animus towards born-again Christians, or you are simply not well enough informed on the topic to make the distinction I am making. And for your information, the modern "born-again Christian" movement in the USA, is less than 100 years old. The methods and practices of this faith are not rooted in the rituals and supersitions of Medieval Europe and to suggest that they are is wrong. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 08:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First, medieval doesn't not bring conservative to mind. Medieval brings to mind European Cathedrals, the quest for the Holy Grail, the Crusades, etc. etc. all related to the age of faith, to the predominance of religion in influencing secular affairs.

Second, if you replace "religious" with "conservative" aren't you implying that conservatives are religious, and vice versa? I know many religious liberals and atheist/agnostic conservatives. Vincent 06:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bush was referring to countries that sponsor terrorism, and named the above three countries as examples. His words have been misinterpreted by some to mean that the "axis of evil" consists solely of those three countries.

That's not how it was interpreted by much of the world. Who said that this was what Bush meant? Who called it a misinterpretation?

Sounds like post-game spin to me. In any case, this needs attribution. --Robert Merkel

Seen from a marxist point of view this talk about an "axis of evil" is imperialist propaganda. The true axis is that of US-imperialism. Many articles of this kind on wikipedia are very biased toward the view of the US-imperialists. What has the people of Iran, Iraq and DPRK to say about this?

Is Anti-US propaganda any better? "US-Imperialism" and "US-imperialists" are both extremely biased statements as well.

Well what is the war in Iraq if not US-imperialism? The USA has violated international law in a war for oil. Is this a biased term? I don't think so. When a nation starts a war in violation of international law, what else can it be?

: I disagree, your (biassed) view is the war was solely for Iraq's oil. My (biassed) view was that it was the fact that Iraq was looking to deal in euros - which would have weakened the dollar. Both of those views are just views though. Stating the war was for any reason, aside from the official view, is wrong and biassed. Yes, say that many people believe the war was for oil, but dont say that is the reason. Liberating the iraqi people, or searching for WMD, is not imperialism. Paul Weaver 15:13 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been an outspoken supporter of the reasoning behind this phrase.

Given that the UK is pursuing a policy of "engagement" towards Iran, this seems misleading. Martin

See [1]:

Tony is asked "Was [axis of evil] a good choice of words though?". He responds: "I think it's for each politician to use their own words". That's hardly a ringing endorsement, and I think Blair is very careful not to support Bush's phrase, while supporting Bush's general policy. Martin

I removed "Axis of Medieval" -- I only found about 115 hits on Google and the top few were about the education system (in Britain, I think), not at all the definition given here. "Axis of Feeble" also seems to have not taken on much of a life as a parody, so I removed it as well. "Axis of Weasels" plus "Axis of Weasel" gets some 6800 hits on Google. Daniel Quinlan 22:51 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the image "Asses of Evil" depicting the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense. Although it has been restored once already, I have again removed it on the grounds that it is inappropriate and decidedly unscholarly. Considering that the bulk of the article relates to the term in terms of actual foreign policy, I think it highly inappropriate that the only image in the entire article be a disrespectful one illustrating a remark made by one person and mentioned only in one sentence in an addendum to the main article. The image does not belong in this article, adds nothing to it, and actually detracts from it. Publius 19:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The picture is in a section clearly labeled "parody" and is an image of a parody directly referred to in the text. I don't see how it could be more relevant.

If it was at the top of the article, you'd have a legitimate complaint. The fact that it's the only image is irrelevant. If you think this page needs a better image, then find one (perhaps one of Bush delivering that speech) don't delete the one that's already here. Gamaliel 20:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the page needs "another" image. The issue is that the image adds nothing to the article, provides an unnecessary illustration of an unimportant sentence, and is unjustifiably disrespectful. The image serves no useful purpose, within the main body of the article or within the "Parody" section. It is inappropriate for a scholarly work. As you appear adamant that the image should remain, I will not delete it a third time; I leave the matter to your prudential good judgment. Publius 21:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First, medieval doesn't not bring conservative to mind. Medieval brings to mind European Cathedrals, the quest for the Holy Grail, the Crusades, etc. etc. all related to the age of faith, to the predominance of religion is influencing secular affairs.

Second, if you replace "religious" with "conservative" aren't you implying that conservatives are religious, and vice versa? I know many religious liberals and atheist/agnostic conservatives. Vincent 06:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Asses of Evil

Just now, I too have deleted the "asses of evil" image. Whoever restores it again will have an RfC filed against them by me. Rex071404 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am appalled that you would threaten editors who disagree with you. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not a threat, it is a head's up. As you know, unlike an Arb complaint which is punative and RfC is advisory. Notifying the other involved parties that a wider discussion will result, is a way to allow them pause and reconsider how this will look to others. Rex071404 04:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I don't think that either a threat or a heads-up is appropriate when it takes form of "Anyone doing thus-and-such will have an RfC filed against them." You've listed the RfC here under "Article content", so it's supposed to be a mechanism for getting many more people to consider a specific content question, not something that's filed "against" anyone (contrast with those RfC's that relate to user conduct). While I'm fruitlessly lecturing you about the rules, I'll add that the statement of the RfC is supposed to be neutral, and your use of the term "guise" (insinuating dishonesty on the part of people who disagree with you) is not neutral.

Turning to the merits: The phrase "asses of evil" as applied to Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld is clearly significant enough to be mentioned, inasmuch as clothing and other merchandise with a similar image is available [www.cafepress.com/assesofevil/336949]. The article also misses "axles of evil" about SUV's. I'll add these two to the "Parody" section. Once they're given in text, the image adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the original term or the parody. I don't agree with Publius's concern about its being "disrespectful". Our duty is not to George W. Bush, but to the reader. If fulfilling that duty requires us to report an instance of people being disrespectful to Bush or to anyone else, so be it. This particular image should go because it doesn't help inform the reader, not because Dubya might be upset at it. JamesMLane 10:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find this logic puzzling, as any picture on wikipedia is simply an illustration of something discussed in the text, and thus by this line of thinking no picture here does anything to "inform the reader". A photo of Bush delivering the "Axis of Evil" line does nothing to "inform the reader", but I doubt its inclusion here would find any opposition. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 15:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, please contain yourself from your continued insults against my English usage. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000 [2], the primary definition of "guise" is "Outward appearance or aspect; semblance". The deception concept usage of "guise" as in "False appearance; pretense", is only a secondary definition. Thus, once again, it is your bias which made you leap to conclusions, infer the worst about me and make erroneous assumptions. Perhaps, next time, you can ask me how I intended the usage, before slamming me, eh? And the RfC was "against" Gamaliel. As evidenced by your comments, the image in question does not belong here - this is common sense to you. And yet, Gamaliel reverted me three times over it. It was precisely to build enough pressure "against" Gamaliel to make him stop that, that I filed the RfC. Had he simply been reasonable about, he would not have had to be embarrassed this way. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 16:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm hardly embarrassed by this, it's actually quite amusing. You made no effort at discussion or dialogue, you simply announced your threat as your first comment on the matter, hardly the action of someone trying to be "reasonable". [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 16:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the RfC, I don't understand why the neutral wording "should this be included in the parody section" is not preferable to the obviously POV "included under the guise of 'parody'". [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, at the point in time where I alerted you about an RfC if you continued, you had already ignored the well reasoned comments of another editor as well as my edit summary of Parody - delete "asses of evil" image = way too POV. Suffice it to say, you have limited credibility with me right now about this, because you reverted me right up to the max. In light of the fact that you ignored both Publius's comments and my edit summary, there was no reason to presume that you would pay any attention at all to more dialog. Further, the fact that your mind, as evidenced by your comments here, is closed on the question of appropriateness, confirms that trying to reason with you on this point is fruitless. Frankly, it appears the only thing you will consider is a broad-based litany of comments which oppose that image. This being the case, I have endeavored to get others to involve themselves. And as you can see, even my frequent editing nemesis, JML, agrees that this image does not belong here. So frankly Gamaliel, it is obvious that you are in the wrong here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 16:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did not ignore Publius, we had a discussion about his comments as anyone can see above. That discussion concluded some time ago. My mind is not "closed" on this matter, I simply have come to a different conclusion than you have. You have not attempted to reason with me or understand this different conclusion, you have simply threatened me with an RfC. The fact that I have "limited credibility" with someone who got himself banned from several articles for POV edits and insulting comments matters little to me. Despite this, I am willing to discuss this if you are actually willing to engage in a substantive dialogue for once, instead of your usual tactics of edit wars, insults, and accusations. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 16:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, the fact that you are so inconsistant between pages on the types of material you support for inclusion and so aggreassive in your reverts, leads me to believe that I am not interested in investing any effort in cultivating a dialog with you. If and when I see problems with your edits, I will notify you where appropriate. Other than that, until your approach changes from being adversarial, I see no benefit in discussing anything with you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 17:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Considering you began this discussion by threatening me, which one of us is adversarial and agressive? I disagree that I am inconsistent between pages at all, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with examples of my supposed inconsistency. In any case, what is relevant here is that we disagree what the principle of POV means. A partisan attack is POV, yes, but documenting partisan attacks is not POV at all, simply the recording of important factual information. FACT: "Axis of evil" is being parodied. FACT:"Asses of Evil" is a AoE parody. What's the problem here? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find your characterizations distressing, please desist. As to your point of "documenting partisan attacks" - if this is done by unduly higlighting them with imbedded graphics, then it's indeed POV. If you simply must refer people to "AssesOfEvil.png" you can do so via a link to the image page. [3] Other than POV intentions, there is no rationale to imbedd the image itself into this article. On anoher note, if you persist with this, I will ask that the image be deleted from this Wiki for Copyright violation - as there is nothing on the image page itself which indicates it is permissable for us to even be using it. All that said, trying to include that image on any basis, is in my view needlessly provocative and adds nothing to the quality of the article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 17:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a clear rationale. It's really quite simple. I've added many pictures to wiki articles, and the reason is always the same. The picture illustrates something in the text. The fact that this particular picture illustrates a partisan attack is something I am pretty indifferent to. I also supported putting a pic of that attack rant Unfit for Command in John Kerry, and if I recall correctly, you did as well. Was that "needlessly provocative" on your part? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to laugh, the book photo to which you refer is of the cover of a best selling nationally known book. On the other hand, the "asses" image is simply a snide mocking taunt which is not at all part of any recognized newsworthy occurance. The is no national AMFT ("Ass Mockers For Truth") group out there making national news under the banner of your desired grpahic. Come back and suggest it again when that is so. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 17:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize that things had to be on the bestseller list before we were allowed to post pictures of them. If it's important enough to mention in the article there is no compelling reason to exclude a picture of the same thing. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No suggestion is being made that "best seller" status is a condition of posting a graphic. Rather, some other criteria which do control are these:

• POV test - "asses" image fails this
• Relevance - "asses" image fails this
• Decorum - "asses" image fails this
• Scholarliness - "asses" image fails this

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 18:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not surprising that it failed a test that you just made up. The image at doggy style fails my personal tests of decorum and scholarliness, as I don't particularly see the value of seeing a picture like that in a non-porn context. But I don't seek to impose my personal standards of decorum on others. As for relevance, the picture illustrates something mentioned in the article, thus its relevance is somewhere around 100 percent. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 18:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To Rex about his RfC:

• "against" - My comment was based on the RfC listing under "Article content disputes" rather than under "Comment about individual users". Evidently I misunderstood your purpose. I accept your correction that your purpose was to act "against" Gamaliel. My comment above concerned only the article content, however, and should not be taken as an endorsement of anything that is "against" Gamaliel. He and I happen to differ on one particular point, that's all. Gamaliel is one of those people with whom I feel that I can disagree, and have a sincere exchange of ideas, without either of us taking it personally. Although you're right that you and I don't often agree, that we both disagree with Gamaliel on this point doesn't prove that he's wrong.
• "guise" - You cite a dictionary giving a primary definition that includes "semblance" (your emphasis). I use Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, which gives the primary meaning of "semblance" as "outward and often specious appearance or show". It wasn't an insult to your English usage to note that most speakers of English would take "guise" in this context to have a connotation of dishonesty. But, hey, let's not bicker about it. If you think it doesn't have that connotation, fine. You've done a lot of editing of George W. Bush. That article includes a reference to the "USA PATRIOT Act which greatly expands the government's powers of surveillance and arrest. The act passed soon after September 11, 2001." At the end of that description, we should add "under the guise of fighting terrorism". I think that statement would be accurate. Will you make the edit, or should I?

I will not rise to the bait of your GWB taunt. The content of an encylopedia is not predicated on your satisfaction with my RfC text. Simply put, you are attempting to extort me in that if I don't agree with you, you are going to intentionally modify GWB in a controversial way. That's dirty pool. On another point, the operative word which your rebuttal hinges on is "specious" [4]. And in this you are correct. I was indeed inferring that the stated rationale for the inclusion of the "asses" image is specious - and that's why I used the word "guise" - it's a less hostile way of saying basically the same thing. On the other hand, I'll remind you that "specious" and "dishonest[y]" are not the same thing. But of course, you knew that already, which is what makes me think that the arguments you offer here are merely "specious" justifications for hammering your views onto me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 22:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you're a one-man advertisement for the POV that the Wikipedia ideal of collaborative editing is a utopian dream. I was neither threatening nor extorting. I would not modify the Bush article in the way I described, precisely because, as I stated, "guise" has a connotation of dishonesty. My opinion that Bush was being dishonest doesn't belong in the article. I was hoping that putting the shoe on the other foot would help you see why "guise" was objectionable. You've now explained that your RfC embodied your opinion that the stated reason for the image was "specious". I agree that's different from "dishonest" but it's still not neutral, so it's still not the right way to frame an RfC. You really ought to become familiar with the rules about different forms of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution -- based on your track record in your first couple months here, you're going to spending a lot of your time on such things. JamesMLane 23:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Turning to the substance, I agree with Gamaliel in rejecting Rex's four-part test. As to the example of Bush giving the speech, that image would help convey an important point about the phrase that is the subject of the article, namely that it had official imprimatur. By contrast, the image now at issue concerns a very minor and peripheral point about the subject of the article, namely that it's been parodied. That's why I didn't find it sufficiently informative. If the "Asses of evil" article had stayed, I'd have no problem with including the image there. For this article, though, I wouldn't include a text statement like "The parody 'asses of evil' has become common enough that it's available on T-shirts and bumper stickers" (although that's true). Including the image really does no more than that. I agree with Gamaliel's analogy to the Unfit for Command image, which I thought didn't belong in the John Kerry article. So at least I'm being consistent.  :) JamesMLane 20:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are going against consensus on the "Asses" image

Please stop. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Axis of evil parody. I'm pretty strongly opposed to censorship of any variety. On the other hand, I can see why you might view this as a cheapshot to score political points. My preferred alternative would be for you to post a similar parody of democrats. Surely such a thing exists. I can't believe those busy beavers over at freerepublic haven't made a 'dean/kerry/edwards' axis of evil parody, or something similar. Has anyone tried to balance this by inclusion rather than deletion? Wolfman 06:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what Wolfman has said. There may also be other alternate solutions, such as posting a link to an "Asses of Evil" website, though I don't see that such a thing exists in a quick google search. Would a different image be more acceptable? (I find the one currently offered to be rather ugly. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/kerrybutton.jpg is a button that Teresa Heinz-Kerry passed around at a party.) Maastrictian 16:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

None of them would be valid - including the utterly POV kerrybutton.jpg you are suggesting. This is an enyclopedia. We are not supposed to be turning every single page into a forum of inclusion for election 2004 POV material. The button you suggest should go on the Kerry Campaign page here. [5] I strongly oppose making a mockery of the topic "Axis off evil". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 17:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why would posting a link be invalid? That seems just as NPOV as the link to Bush's reelection campagin on George W. Bush and the link to Andrew Marlatt's parody in the article under discussion, neither of which I assume you have an objection to. Further, what objection (if any) do you have to Wolfman's suggestion of solving this problem by inclusion rather than deletion? I continue to think that his comprimise solution is the best that has been proposed so far.

A simple link to the Asses of Evil Collective or to the "Asses of Evil" [www.cafepress.com/assesofevil/336949 merchandise catalog] wouldn't raise the problem of overemphasizing the parody by including the image. I'm always cautious about linking to a commercial site, but I can see the argument for saying that the second link would be relevant in this instance. JamesMLane 20:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Prior dialog elsewhere about "Asses of evil"

Copied from here

This is no more notable than any other mildly witty bit of sloganeering; AFAIK, the Kerry campaign has never used it (understandably), nor has any other prominent pol. This is just the sort of thing you can pick up for a few bucks at a rally. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. RickK 19:15, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the stupid, inflammatory page, and the image that came with it. I don't like Bush either (looks left, looks right) but that was unacceptable. I swear, political debate is getting less intelligent on both sides of the center nowadays. --Ardonik 20:03, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Page created & then edited by multiple Wikipedians. All the same, this particular attack on BC'04 is not sufficiently explained in popularity to support the article. Ed Poor's first edit suggests that it originates with Ariana Huffington. Fair enough, but did it get picked up by others? Article title is impossible to search for (no space between the colon and A). "Regime change begins at home" and "empty war heads" were more popular, as I recall. The article is actually NPOV, as far as it can be, but not notable or widespread. Geogre 00:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but only if there's a redirect to Axis of Evil. The "parody" section there is sufficient for this and other deriviatives of that slogan. And keep the image. Gamaliel 19:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Axis of evil. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:09, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 17:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, why are you adding your vote to an old discussion about an article which has already been deleted? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why are you working so hard to carry over controversy from a useless page which merited only deletion? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 17:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MHO - asses of evil

Granted, a very significant portion of the population inside the u.s., and a much larger portion outside, feels this way about the administration. Granted, it is a legitimate parody, and deserves mention. However, I do not think it appropriate to have the picture on here. Esp. it being the only picture. That would be disproportionate. One could put a link to an outside source, and maybe that outside source would have a picture, that would be fine. Kevin Baas | talk 18:07, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Let me be quite clear - I am a British anti-Bush, war demonstrator. I also write topical gags, am a fan of the extremely forthright satirist Chris Morris and watch any comedy I can lay my hands on.

However, I think inclusion of the parodic picture on the article would be a mistake. There are few political issues that one could not parody in some way, so to include this one picture sets an unwise precedent.

Any leading political figure will have been parodied, so there will always be easy access to an image or quote from a comedian that someone can find with minimal effort and then seek to combine into an article. That way leaves us open to a form of trolling where the troll can seek to add parodic content to many hundreds of articles and, if someone protests, the troll need do no more than refer back to here for the precedent.

Please consider placing the image in the parody or satire article instead. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:16, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Axis of Eve

Rex has deleted this reference in the "Parody" section on the preposterous grounds that it's "POV". (Of course, Rex has no problem with the POV of "axis of weasels" to refer to countries whose foreign policies he dislikes.) Axis of Eve is indeed a political group. Nevertheless, as Gamaliel tried to explain to Rex, mentioning that things exist is not POV. Anyone who stops by here in response to the RfC about the image, and who happens to notice this section, might usefully chime in on this point. I think that the article on "Axis of evil" should report the puns on and variations of that phrase that have achieved notability -- including "axis of weasels" (right-wing POV) and "Axis of Eve" (name of left-wing group). JamesMLane 05:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jml, you are mistaken on this "parody" issue - here's why:

• "Axis of Weasels" is an appropriate, non-commercial Wiki link

• And, the phrase "Asses of Evil" itself, is acceptable, because it is a known play on the term.

However, the link to: http://assesofevil.org, is not appropriate, because this web site is an political activist site ("Thanks to our many volunteers in Boston during the DNC, we sold a lot of shirts, publicized our websites") which sells t-shirts and did not in fact invent the "asses of evil" term. This is inherently POV and there is no POV controversy on this page which invites linking to such material.

• Also, "Axis of Eve" is not a bona fide play on the term, but rather is another activist site http://www.axisofeve.org which simply chose this name as a marketing gimmick. They too sell items such as "Panties with a Purpose". Now selling panties would not in and of itself be an issue, but these particular panties are part of the whole activst M.O. of this group: "Register Eves and Adams everywhere to Vote! Call your local Democratic party office, they can give you the tools and training to do voter registration." This too is not a true parody site, rather it is an activist site masquerading as parody. Also POV same as assesofevil.org.

• Finally, in regards to "axis of medieval"; "Christian fundamentalist" is not associated with "medieval" and even if it were, that is too tangental of a sectarian baiting and need not be here - it adds nothing - only stirs up trouble. This one is not even heard of anywhere, I have checked - this is nothing but gratuitious mocking and trouble making.

Frankly, I don't have too much trouble with any of the phrases themselves (except the gratuitious swipe at Christians). But I am going to oppose the links as they are simply too POV, they inject needless controvesy and they are acually activist/commercial sites, not true parody sites.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 07:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As was often said, listing parodies is not POV. Axis of Eve gets 3000 google hits, and if it's an activist anti-Bush group, then it's name is certainly a parody of Axis of Evil. As for Axis of Medieval, it gets 1700 google hits, and it's a good example of parody, see above.

I do agree though that including these links somehow crosses the line from mentioning the joke to making the joke, so I didn't revert those. Vincent 08:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there two problems with what is being tried here: 1) those two sites are not "parody" sites about Bush's speech - rather they are activist sites against Bush. The other is the fact that these have not merely been "listed" but linked to. Remember, this page is about a phrase and speech which have specific political meaning. Therefore a bona-fde parody must as it's central focus, poke fun at those. These other sites do not have that as their central purpose. They are not "parodies", but organizations which sloganeer in a play-on-words fashion which is being mis-characterized as a parody. Even so, thank you for agreeing against the links themselves [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 09:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding links: Personally, i'd like to see links all over the place; little [1]'s and [2]'s. to substantiate the info and allow users to explore. This is the original idea behind hypertext. I don't think that linking or not-linking should be determined by political considerations. Linking is for purely informative purposes - let the information stand as it is, regardless of it's nature or one's particular sentiment to it. That is how to be encyclopedic and neutral. Kevin Baas | talk 17:54, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Intentional insertion of links to political activits sites often times are not needed to make the editorial point. In fact, they can often detract. But if that's the position you take, then I suppose you would have no problems with oodles of links to FreeRepublic.com spread liberally aroundnd the various articles you and I edit? Or am I misunderstanding you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 18:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404, I can't help but note that you are suggesting that the specific rule that Kevin_baas proposes be applied generally ("I suppose you would have no problems with oodles of links to FreeRepublic.com spread liberally aroundnd the various articles you and I edit?") Above, when JamesMLane uses that technique to critisize your arguement you refer to it as a "taunt" and "dirty pool". You can't condem the technique in one post while using it in another. That really is dirty pool. Maastrictian 19:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, let me second Maastrictian's dislike of hypocracy. I would take the side you take in your most recent post, and remain consistent (not hypocritical). But this does not mean, as you therein suggested, that we should spread "oodles of links to FreeRepublic.com" "liberally around the various articles" we edit. The links should be as relevant and specific to the subject matter as possible. Clearly, if an article contains the phrase "Free Republic", refering to the same "Free Republic" refered to by said website, then a link to that website should be provided. On the other hand, where the phrase "Chicago Bears" appears, there should be a link to the Chigao Bears' website, not FreeRepublic.com. Kevin Baas | talk 20:24, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense - under your scheme, anyone tool with a domain name can get his stuff linked into this Wiki. Under your plan, it would be acceptable to register a domain name of "JohnKerryAintSoSwift.com" and simply because it is "parody" of "swift" and "Kerry" it can get linked to all Kerry/Swift related pages - but of course, allowing such a thing is absurd. In any case, on a sheer "information value" test, the links you lobby for have too little information about the topic at hand - which is the history and usage of the phrase "Axis of evil" to merit their inclusion. I am not going to simply throw in the towel on this. Mentioning these terms is fine, but the links add no editorial value and are POV. Also, the "medevial" link / anti-Christian slur is utter junk and has been fully explained by me. You are in the wrong here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 21:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with Maastrictian about applying the same standards to everyone. On that score, I find it particularly humorous that Rex is resisting a link to Axis of Eve on the grounds that it's a political activist organization. Back when Rex was still allowed to edit the John Kerry article (before the ArbCom issued a temporary block), one of his pet causes was promoting "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- a political activist organization. He made several reverts to try to link to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article twice in the same paragraph, a clear violation of Wikistyle. What's more, our born-again opponent of commercialism not only had no problem with SBVT's commercial activities, but made multiple reverts to try to keep, in the John Kerry article, an image of the front cover of SBVT's book. By that standard, we should not only keep the Axis of Eve link, we should include in this article a photo of one of the "Expose Bush" panties they sell.

I draw a distinction between Rex and Vincent, who has no such history. Vincent, I think your point is advanced in complete good faith, so let me address it. We seem to be agreed that the "Parody" section of this article can report that there's an anti-Bush organization called Axis of Eve, although Rex wanted to delete even that information. I think standard Wikipedia style is that, if we refer to an organization, we link to the article about it; if there is none, we frequently link to an external site. This is so even if the site is strictly commercial, let alone an organization like this one that's primarily political but happens to sell some stuff. We're not so much making the joke as we are letting the readers see that it wasn't just a Jay Leno one-liner, but was played up enough to inspire a substantial organization. For that reason, I think the link adds to the information available to the reader about the subject of the article. It would be too peripheral to this article, however, to replace the link with a detailed description of the Axis of Eve organization. The link lets an interested reader explore it further, without cluttering the article. JamesMLane 20:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. But if a parody generates hundreds of google hits, should any specific hit be listed? If we are to link, then shouldn't we link in the style of an ISBN number, or maybe link a google search like this [6] instead of a specific site? Vincent 01:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a need to link to the "asses of evil" site. As far as I can tell, that site is just some vendors trying to sell stuff to capitalize on a popular riff on the phrase. I think there are other versions of "asses of evil" out there, e.g. one including Ashcroft along with the three we name. So there's no entity, i.e., no genuine organization called by that name. Similarly, I don't know of any "axis of weasels" website or organization (though I haven't bothered googling). In each of these cases, our basis for listing the phrase is that it's in common use, probably by more than one person. By contrast, with "Axis of Eve", our basis for listing that variation on the original phrase is that it's a variation that's inspired a notable organization. I think all or virtually all of the thousands of Google hits relate specifically to the organization. Typically, when we mention an organization, we link to it. Axis of Eve is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article. Until we have one, though, the normal linking style is to link to the organization's own website. (If we had an Axis of Eve article, it would certainly link to the website.) JamesMLane 02:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Axis of Eve issue is resolved

Per JML above, "Axis of eve" Wiki page created here. I have no objections to linking to this Wiki page, provided that no editors try to use it to funnel excess quantities of anti-Bush POV into this article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 05:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A link and a brief description for each parody. Simple enough & impartial. Each parody should be given the same amount of attention. There is room enough in the article - in the paragraph - for this. Anything less than a link and a brief description is arbitrary and intentional suppresion of information and as such is intolerable. Kevin Baas | talk 19:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Not so- there is a system behind what I have done: Each term that has an available link, gets a link only. Each term that has no page, gets a description. Anything more creates too many opportunities to inject POV and cause inter-editor bickering. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 19:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright, let's be clear, the name of a parody is not POV - it is objective. Also, the description of a parody, as they would describe themselves, is not POV. It is objective. Simply because it may provoke certain emotions in certain individuals does not make it POV. Here we call a cat a cat and a dog a dog. Not doing so would be POV.

As regards consensus, if you look back through the talk page you will see that basically everyone is in agreement on how the paragraph should be. Some would probably like less or more, but they are reasonable enough to know that they can't get everything that they want. We have reached consensus on giving everything equal attention - a link and a brief description - and there is nothing unreasonable, arbitrary, POV, or in any way unjust about this. Kevin Baas | talk 19:32, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I have no problem with linking to a Wikipedia article for Axis of Eve. In fact, this discussion had called my attention to the need for such an article, and I've already exchanged emails with Tasha Eve. She's willing to release a photo or two for our use, so I'll be able to illustrate the article. What does everyone think we should use: the "give bush the finger" panties, the "expose bush" panties, or maybe the "weapon of mass seduction" tank top? JamesMLane 20:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreement between 5, 10 or even 100 persons to intentionally include an anti-Christian "description" still does not make it right. Suffice it to say, I am digging in my heels on this one, so if you want Rfc or Mediation or Arbitration, we might as well go for it now.

I especially say this to JML and K. Baas; There is no editorial goal which you seek - fairly balanced with my objections - which is not attended to in my version.

Frankly, I am appalled at the both of you that you would insist on the inclusion of such a slanderous statement as this: ""axis of medieval" (the USA for its policies that opponents claim have strong Christian fundamentalist overtones)"

Shame on the both of you! Your version adds minimal editorial benefits, but injects large amounts of needless spite. Well and truely, I am very surprised that the both of you are fighting to include such needless inflammatory language. Suffice it to say, the drive to include that must be aimed at encouraging the snide mocking of our President's faith, or else, why insist that it be written the way you want it written?

Aren't the links and the new "Axis of Eve" page - which I created to meet your objections - enough? Why must I take measures to adjust and bend to the wishes of others here, yet others show no respect for mine? Where is the collegial spirit in that?

Is this how we edit a Wiki - by bullying thoughtful objections into silence? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 02:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, the word "evil" has its origin in religion! Its primary meaning is closely linked to morality and religion, and President Bush chose the phrase, quite possibly because of this. That's reason enough to describe the joke as "mocking the strong religious overtones". Reverting. Vincent 03:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you overlook that my version draws it's current description DIRECTLY from the referred to Wiki page "latest fix here drawn as direct quote from Wiki page on "Axis of Medieval". Plenty of edits have gone on there already and they did not arrive at the inference or view that you and the others here are pushing. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 03:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, your vicious personal attack on me is one of the silliest things I've ever seen from you -- which is saying a lot, considering that, of the comments on and edits to articles that I've been significantly involved in, you've contributed more silly things than everyone else put together. And, of course, as is typical of your tendency to act as if you and only you have any understanding of Wikipedia etiquette and principles, you do so in the name of "collegial spirit". Is this comment of mine a personal attack on you, in violation of the rules? I don't think so, so I'll spare you the trouble of typing a threat to start RfC/RfM/RfAr/whatever. I stand by my statement regardless of which of those you threaten or actually commence. JamesMLane 05:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see, because you are offended at my explainations and comments, you refuse to address them? Suffice it to say, the effort to smear Bush's faith is off-topic, does not appear in the poplular lexicon and is contradcited by a pre-existing wiki page. You are off-base here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All right, Rex, you've succeeded in wasting yet more of my time.

• I contend that this edit of yours violated the policy of NPOV in that you sought to censor even the factual information about the existence of an organization because you disagreed with the organization's political stance. You repeated your attempt to install a right-wing POV here and here, desisting only when the reverts of your POV changes made it clear that you weren't going to be able to get away with this one. I further contend that this edit of yours violated the policy of civility.
• Please provide me with a comparable link to any edit of mine, whether to Axis of evil or to this talk page, that you contend was improper. JamesMLane 11:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse - during all that time, I was focused on and working towards reaching consensus. In fact, it was ME who created the "Axis of Eve" Wiki page so we could end the bickering over that. Also, why you insist on dwelling on personal upsets, puzzles me - simple tell me which of my words you take offense at and I will render a thoughtful apology on those words speficially. Now let me turn this around: my facts - in the form of Wiki quote and the Google links I have supplied as proof, are clear - the aim of some here to use "Axis of Medieval" as a slur agaisnt Bush (and other Christians in general) is clearly NOT the basis for that turn-of-phrase, but rather it's a perversion and misuse of it. I am sorry to say this, but any here who support using that phrase to insult Bush's form of Evangelical Christian faith, are indeed advancing a form of bigotry. That is my view and as tactfully as I can, I am going to stand by it. Even so, so as to not keep you waiting any longer, I am sory for upsetting you. Perhaps those here who want to equate modern Evangelical Christianity with the cliche' of backwardness that Medieval "jokes" drive for, will also apologize to me? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which of your words I take offense at? "Frankly, I am appalled at the both of you...." where I'm included as one of the two targets of the attack; and similarly "Shame on the both of you!" plus the charge that I was injecting "needless spite" and "inflammatory language", followed by the insinuation that, in violation of "collegial spirit", I was engaged in "bullying". For anyone who sees Wikipedia as primarily an opportunity to advance a political cause, I suppose such flak is considered par for the course, which would explain your mystification at my reaction. For those of us genuinely dedicated to producing a top-quality encyclopedia, however, these are serious charges. I accept your belated apology but I think your willingness to shoot from the hip in making the charges in the first place is very telling. JamesMLane 16:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contrary to the contentions of certain editors here, there is virtually no evidence available to support the "Christian = Medieval" twist as being in any kind of bona-fide or wide-spread usage, let alone supporting it as the definative interpretation of "Axis of Medieval". Why you won't either admit this, or supply proof, puzzles me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take it that the "you" in your comment of 17:34 refers to me. I've already left you a teensy little clue that might help you end your puzzlement. Reread this edit of mine and see if you can find it. This will be an exercise in paying attention to what another user is actually saying, and trying to understand what someone else is thinking, as opposed to just woodenly reiterating a preconceived idea. JamesMLane 17:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Axis of Weasels

In all honesty I can say that I have only heard it in the plural version. In fact Google returns over 400% more hits for the plural version [7] than the singular version [8] Let's talk, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 06:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Axis of Medieval

Attn: "Vfp15" will you PLEASE read the talk page and my edit summaries - I am directly quoting a Wiki page - stop the POV edits PLEASE!

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have read the Talk page, not POV, read comments higher up the page. Vincent 06:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please read these:

• http://www.fact-index.com/a/ax/axis_of_medieval.html
• http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,959059,00.html
• http://www.theagitator.com/archives/004291.php
• http://www.valleyskeptic.com/Bush_vs__Women.htm

The usage which "Vfp15" aka "Vincent' claims as superceding is non-existant or at the very least, not definative. I oppose it in the strongest terms.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The group can read a dialog between Rex and Vfp15 here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your links are irrelevant. One is a wiki mirror, another an article about British education, the third is a comedic blog entry which has nothing to do with politics (The fourth is a broken link). These aren’t pertinent at all.

Your constant repetition of the fact that you are “quoting a wiki article” as if they were sacrosanct is nonsensical as you yourself have loudly and constantly complained about the content of wiki articles. You’ve ripped a quote out of context and I don’t particularly think the intro to that particular article is well-written in any case.

The middle ages are seen by many as an era of backwardness and superstition and thus “medieval” signifies a lack of scientific knowledge and progress due to the negative influence of religion. Political positions based on, influenced by, or seen as catering to religious views are labeled “medieval” by many because they believe they are based on religion instead of science, logic, or other more deserving criteria or are just simply backwards and don’t live up to modern standards of decency and reason. This has nothing to do with being “conservative” in general, but a particular stripe of religious conservatism. Your sanitized “non-POV” version is simply not complete or accurate.

Now is the position I just described fair? accurate? bigoted? anti-Christian? I submit that these questions are not within the scope of our mission on wikipedia. These are the views of certain people, our mission is to document them, not to pass judgment on them or conclude they are bigoted or unfair.

Your constant misapplication of the NPOV principle to eliminate the documentation of strong views you dislike is not within the spirit of NPOV or wikipedia. Imagine if I went to the Ass Mockers for Truth article and eliminated all quotes from Schacte and Gardner as “too-POV”. You would probably have a brain aneurysm, but not before you loudly accused me of inserting a pro-Kerry POV by eliminating these documented opinions. In that particular hypothetical case, you would be right. And in the case of this and other articles, that is exactly what you are trying to do.

In short, the application of “axis of medieval” may be anti-Christian, but if it is, it’s irrelevant, not in the scope of our mission to make such conclusions, and doesn’t mean we should not document this supposedly anti-Christian view. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 16:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh?? It is not a "quote" that is at issue here. Rather, it is an editor(s) choice of words. As such, we have the choice to use or not use intentionally inflammatory rhetoric. Also, the entire rationale you cite for "axis of medieval" in the 1st place is "parody" - not social commentary, not personal attacks, not editorial mandate. Certainly, the "parody" aspect is covered by including the link - which I am not opposing. Rather, what I am opposing is the editorial choice of words which is too inaccurate and too tenuious of a justification for including your desired insult against Christians. Please see this google link here. One good measure of the bona fide existance and usage of a meme or term is to check Google for total number of "hits". For example "Axis of Weasles" returns over 11,00 hits [9], "Axis of Eve" returns [10] 3,500 hits, but the term "Axis of Medieval" returns only 1,760 hits [11]. And, a quick review of some of the 1st few hits which come up, do not show any examples of the preferred usage which you cite. Therefore, you have no justification to assert that your interpretation of that "joke" is definative. There is not data to support you view, but there is a Wiki page on this Wiki which clearly has drawn from the one factual referrence on the web here. That referrence is the #1 google return and it - as does this Wiki on the same named page - uses this verbiage "conservative" political agenda". That's why I cite it and it's why I am going to continue to oppose allowing the posting of a twisted and amplified version of a virtuallly non-extistant turn of phrase - "Axis of Medieval" to be used on this Wiki by others such as you to assault and insult people on the basis of their faith. Your requested text slanders and causes controversy, and yet, keeping it out does not detract from the article. You may as well go ahead and go for Rfc, Mediation or Arb com on this, because I am not yielding on that point - I already have bent over backwards and led the charge to resolve all the other points (see above). It is now the turn of the others here to bend some as well. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "reference" you keep citing is a wikipedia mirror and it says so at the bottom of the page, and to use a wiki mirror as an authoritative reference about what you're going to put on wikipedia is like, well, insert the analogy of your choice here, but it's just silly.

Parody is often used for social commentary, as it is with all the parodies in the relevant section of the article. To say that they are two seperate things is a misunderstanding of what parody is. It's not just silly misnamed movie characters in Mad Magazine.

These are all just side issues. Despite claims of "authoritative references" and the "definition" of parody, what it comes down to is that you are eliminating something because of your own POV. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have consistantly failed my call to provide any referrence which supports your alleged version of usage. Your so-called version of usage exists only in the supposition of a few who are advancing it on this page. Either provide proof of your usage being pre-eminant or admit that my desired text will suffice - the choice is yours. Also, if you are so certain that your version is a valid intepretation, why don't you put it on it's respective Wiki page? [12] You are free to add your interpretation to the Axis of Medieval page. Then both the current (and original onthis Wiki) interpretation (which I support) and yours (which I oppose) can be explained, pro and con there. You are being unreasonable in trying to "trump" me on this page, when (as I did with "eve") there is a proper venue to list and explain your version. I am reverting you again. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I am in full agreement with Gamaliel here, and I don't think you're really listening to him. Kevin Baas | talk 19:47, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

What do you agree with him about?:

Regarding the contention that "Christianity = Medieval" variant of the "axis of medieval" "pun" , do you say:

* Gamaliel's/yours is the only possible interpretation of that "pun"?

* Do you say it's impossible that Bush's motivations could be "conservative 1st, Christian 2nd"?

* If so, what proof can you supply?

Please advise. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, it does not matter what Bush's motivations actually are. This isn't the GWB article. We are simply documenting a claim that Bush's motivations are fundamentalist Christian. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement by Gamaliel. I do not say either of the two possibilities you offered. In fact, I agree with you that neither of those possibilities can be substantiated. Kevin Baas | talk 21:08, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Some media references to the "axis of medieval"

The Bush administration is allying the U.S. with the likes of Iran, Sudan and Syria to frustrate international efforts to save the lives of some of the most helpless people on earth. Somehow we have become the core of an Axis of Medieval.

New York Times August 16, 2002

In a payback to the fundamentalist Christian, American delegations they use almost every international negotiation as an opportunity to try to restrict women's access to contraception and abortion. The fact they combine forces with the Vatican and fundamentalist Islamic states to press this agenda has led some observers to dub them leaders of an 'axis of medieval'.

Scotland on Sunday March 30, 2003

Negotiations over the amendment shed an interesting light on the murky world of international diplomacy. The US opposed the amendment along with the Vatican and Islamic nations, an unusual alliance of countries critics have dubbed the "axis of medieval". They say the US and the Vatican were concerned that mentioning human rights could be seen as an endorsement of abortion and contraception.

New Scientist September 14, 2002

But Costa Rica, Spain and the US, dubbed "the axis of medieval" by some insiders, have tabled a treaty that would ban all cloning. It has the support of around 60 countries. Belgium has tabled a compromise treaty that would allow countries to decide for themselves whether to ban therapeutic cloning or allow it under strict regulation. This is supported by only about 30 countries. Many more remain undecided.

New Scientist November 1, 2003

Will this do? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not without links, they will not - and in any case, you have not supplied enough quotes to support your version vs the ambiguous ill-defined status of this "pun" as evidenced by the Google seach. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because links are difficult to find/provide. (that was sarcasm) Kevin Baas | talk 20:33, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

These articles were found using the Lexis/Nexis database, which is a pay service. You cannot link to articles in the database, or if you can I do not know how. I cannot post entire articles here because of copyright issues and I do not think that is necessary in any case. I have provided enough information from each article to satisfy your demands. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No you haven't - the quotes you cite do not all support your take that "Christianity = Medieval" and further, none of them referrence this phrase as the form of a "parody". Therefore again you have made my point: You are trying to insert something onto a page where is does not belong. Go to the Axis of medieval page itself and put your version of this so-called "pun" phrase there. Then too, I will have plenty of dialog and edit space to address and oppose it. Taking this issue to that page is the correct solution. It worked for Axis of Eve and is can work for this too. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to the first article on the NY Times site, though you will have to pay $2.95 to read the whole thing. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, the NYT quote you supplied does not even have the word "Christian" in it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the references cited all use "Axis of Medieval" as a parody (thus, they don't cite it as such)--it's implicit. As far as "supposed" goes, I don't think Bush or his supporters would contest that his faith has an impact on his policy stances (I can dig up appropriate quotes if I must, but I hope we can agree on this). Thus, any "supposed" influence is in fact an actual influence. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:05, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Not true - unless and until you can cite from personal experience as an Evangelical Christian who has taught Christian Doctrine (as I have) you are not sufficiently informed to be able to explain this: Evangelical Christians (as Bush is) do as a matter of doctrine, look towards the principle of "speaking the truth in love". Now, because we are imperfect, we often flub up (as I do by being harsh at times), but even so, the aim and the princple is truth tempered by love. It simply is not intellectually honest to suggest (even as a "pun") that a Christian leader seeking to do his duty to both God and Country, would adopt, promote or advance an agenda which is aimed towards Medieval patterns or ideas. Such suggestions are non-sense. It's tantamount to suggesting that Christians are live-in-the past dolts who cannot grow with the times. Christians, by doctrine are called to be "in the world, not of it". The concept you are straining to reach perhaps might be labled "ludditism" [13], but that could not reasonably be applied to any but the most clanninsh and narrow strains of Fundemental Christians - certainly not a mainstream Evangelical such as Bush. The simple fact is, regardless of certain editors here having proclaimed "Christian" status, the logic being used against Bush here is indeed starting from a negative assumption about how he views and applies his faith. This is why some here are so quick to conclude that "Christianity = Medieval", when in fact, it does not. And because this group presumes that, they are quick to think that any usage of the term "Medieval" in a "pun" must refer to and only to Bush's faith. It is precisly that stereotypical slur which I am opposing. This Wiki is no place to be advancing stereotypes and slurs. There is not one person here who has yet made the case that the article is harmed by either my preferred edits or by the inclusion of "a supposed" into Meelar's. And more so, even if I alone object about this, that should be enough to show that it's only "supposed" what you are inferring about Bush's faith. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yanks

how about the "old europe"?! damit u r all such a bunch of republicans--GregLoutsenko 20:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The axis of feeble

http://www.economist.com/images/20060513/20060513issuecovUS400.jpg

Someone needs to put this in...

Mr. Bush

By the way, the referral is changed to "Mr." instead of "President" when any American feels that the man elected has become a national and international disgrace, usually before, during, or after impeachment.

You'll find the early congess often referred to presidents they considered traitors as "Mr." instead of "President."

Any man who supports himself with phoney bible thumpers, sends innocent boys off to die so he and his friends can become billionairs, and makes that same stupid good ole boy cry of "Patriot!" is like John Adams putting a $100,000.00 bounty on Thomas Jefferson's head for seditious writings.

You all really need to learn history and to get off this very stupid political lent of trying to define things using the newspeak dictionary.

less star wars refereneces on wikipedia please

common guys this is a political discussion, could we keep the emperor palpatine stuff out of it. I am as big of a starwars fan and nerd as the next guy, but serioulsy, lets clean it up and keep it academic on this one.

Silly thing

Bush is an *vulgar word*. How can do this as developed democracy as the US are? Axis... they only want to live their own non-western way, yeah, there are some terrorists, but also if they wanted, they cant do anything against "Great west" (except terroristic attacs). And, yeah, they'r makin' nuclear rockets (or what), but we do the same! I'd like to see Bush saying: "Today we stop developing our nuclear bombs." And we are much stronger. Yeah, and I am not a comunist, or how you call them, "who are not with us are against us".

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Assesofevilprotestsign2002.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Assesofevilprotestsign2002.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Dubious - Evil Empire as inspiration for term

Is there any first or near-first party source on this? aka an interview with George W. Bush himself or an important member of his staff. While axis has long held clear WWII connotations, "evil" is a generic term. Furthermore, there is no former soviet nation in the original trio. -- sarysa (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is a conflict over whether or not this article supports the notion that "axis of evil" is derived from "Evil Empire": https://cornellsun.com/2019/10/02/johns-seventy-years-of-evil/

I assert that it does not. The word "evil" is a generic term, and furthermore there are no mentions of "Axis of evil", "Iraq", "Iran", "North Korea", nor any of those countries leaders nor George W. Bush.

A sufficient source would for this would have to be from someone involved with coining the term. Otherwise, it's just a random person's assumption that has been elevated to "fact", despite being baseless. -- sarysa (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)