text:
Talk:Arthur Treacher's

{{Broken anchors|links= }}
 * chips (French fries) Anchor French fries links to a specific web page: United Kingdom. The anchor (#United Kingdom) has been deleted by other users before. 2001","CITEREFSteingarten","CITEREFPoundstone","CITEREF2005","CITEREF1973","CITEREF2006","CITEREF2001","CITEREFBellantoni2006","CITEREFTebben"]},"disappear":{"revid":703266398,"parentid":697932810,"timestamp":"2016-02-04T13:59:50Z","removed_section_titles":["United Kingdom"],"added_section_titles":["United Kingdom and Ireland"]},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"United Kingdom and Ireland"} -->

Advertisement?
The advertisement should be deleted. -- Zoe

 * I don't see any problem here. It's a short, factual article about a prominent business, and doesn't engange in ad-speak at all.  --LDC

 * If we are going to keep this article...then Pudgie's should be added as an article or part of this one. Benje309 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Update Needed
The article quotes restaurant locations as of 2008, and it has other information as of 2011. A lot can happen in that time period.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Restaurant count and distribution updated. 216.113.160.68 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arthur Treacher's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113090805/http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Arthur:Treacher.htm to http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Arthur:Treacher.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If I get around to it (source)
78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE 2021
Nathan's plans on opening more stores...

https://www.qsrmagazine.com/exclusives/nathans-plans-revive-fast-food-icon-arthur-treachers/ 2603:6011:6F00:B356:403F:D80D:FAB6:E933 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Arthur Treacher's


text:
Talk:Lua (programming language)

Can embedding Lisp -like code?
e.g.: quote(string)                    -> "string" quote(quote(expr))               -> "quote(expr)" quote(quasiquote(expr))          -> "quasiquote(expr)" quote(quasiquote(unquote(expr))) -> "quasiquote(unquote(expr))" quote(unquote(expr))             -> "unquote(expr)" quasiquote(string)               -> "string" quasiquote(quote(expr))          -> "quote(expr)" quasiquote(quasiquote(expr))     -> "quasiquote(expr)" quasiquote(unquote(expr))        -> expr

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lua (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723114641/http://www.eluaproject.net/en_overview.html to http://www.eluaproject.net/en_overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

p.s.
−3, –3, and -3 are three different things; to wit a minus, an endash, and a hyphen. Dis sayin'... --Brogo13 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I explained the problem, which is unrelated to this article, at my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem, according to your edit summary, was my script—I have none. I simply found some hyphens masquerading as dashes and some where minus signs would make sense e.g. west longtitudes and south latitudes. (Why they work but minuses don't is still beyond me.) --Brogo13 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Template parameters expect numbers to be numbers, for example 12.3 or -12.3 (that's a hyphen which is the universal symbol for a negative number in programming languages). Some code in MediaWiki accepts a minus sign as equivalent to negative but modules (using Lua) do not, not unless the module takes extra steps to convert minus signs to hyphens before interpreting the numbers. Minus signs are typographic symbols for humans. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Object oriented programming?
In 'metatables', we learn that __index is a function that is called __index(self, key) whenever a key is not found.

But in 'object oriented programming', __index is set to Vector itself.

Does this mean that a table *is* a self function that performs lookup? That x['foo'] is the same as x(x, 'foo') ?

203.13.3.90 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. You can convince yourself of that by using https://www.lua.org/cgi-bin/demo and pasting the following:
 * The first print returns 123 as expected, the second returns an error. A table clearly performs a lookup, but is not a function in the Lua sense. For more information on datatypes, see https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#2 --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first print returns 123 as expected, the second returns an error. A table clearly performs a lookup, but is not a function in the Lua sense. For more information on datatypes, see https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#2 --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first print returns 123 as expected, the second returns an error. A table clearly performs a lookup, but is not a function in the Lua sense. For more information on datatypes, see https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#2 --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lua (programming language)


text:
Talk:Coen brothers

Man Who Wasn't There reception
Critics on The Man Who Wasn't There: IIRC Ebert and Maltin both liked it a great deal until the curve at the end, then felt cheated. Many commented about how there was less perceived condescension in this film than in the Coens' others. I should start collecting these trivia tidbits so I can add them in less of a vague & unattributed way, without having to do research. --KQ 18:57 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Interesting article, but the flow is confusing. Might be better to make the descriptions of scenes stand out from the regular text in some way. —Mulad, May 30, 2003

 * Great stuff, but somehow I feel that the only reason I understood all of the article, esp. the scene references, was because I'd seen (almost) all of the movies. - Rbs 07:28, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

Plot Revelation
Realize that one shouldn't read a bio on filmmakers without expecting to be exposed to some storylines, but the passage under 'Violence': "The Ladykillers all of the main characters die in an attempt to dispose of a body" seems to be overly informative. Please review and amend if you agree.
 * (would deem this revelation totally acceptable had I directed myself to the movie itself, and not the filmmakers)

directing distinctions section
Half the entire section is just listing other filmmakers who tied one of their distinctions. Why? Also that section isn't even directly about "directing distinctions" since it's about receiving a number of nominations, most of which aren't for directing.

2603:8000:A240:A826:4956:84C6:32D2:7540 (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coen brothers


text:
Talk:Long John Silver's

Wiping
It looks like the article has now been almost entirely wiped by user Mythdon, probably in the name of citations. This seems a bit excessive, since the information seemed mostly verifiable and useful. Can't anyone confirm a link to the novel by Robert Louis Stevenson? 76.109.96.77 (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevance
Is this kind of article really appropriate/relevant/useful? I'm concerned about people using Wikipedia to advertise their products for free, and this kind of article seems to invite that sort of useage. I could be wrong, of course. :) -- April
 * Without having read the article (yet), I would say that articles about businesses are useful. I would like to know the history of Long John Silver's or Burger King. How did it get started? How big is it? Where are the restaurants? What is their franchising policy?
 * I would not like to see today's menu, or a link to their 877-FAST delivery website; one tasteful External Link to the offical company website would be fine, though.
 * Now I'm going to read the article. Ed Poor, Thursday, March 28, 2002

 * Okay, I read it. It's stubby (looks like my typical stub!!), but with a little fleshing out will turn into a fine, useful article. There's nothing in it that needs to be deleted; the problem is that it's too short. Ed Poor, Thursday, March 28, 2002

A mystery
I went into a LJS in Orange County, California, and found tht it served Coca-Cola beverages. I thought all Yum! Brand restaurants had a master supply agreement with Pepsi. Worth a thought or two. knoodelhed 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ive worked at an ljs in san antonio, texas for the past 5 years and i can tell you that every single one has coca-cola bevereges.
 * I worked at LJS. We served Coca~Cola products, while KFC and Pizza Hut sold Pepsi products. PrometheusX303 19:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many factors that have to deal with this issue. Is your LJS company owned or privately owned (see Franchise)? What are the fast food chains around your LJS selling drink wise? What does your region of the United States prefer? I know that in McKinney, Texas the LJS is company owned and sells Pepsi. That being said, we had Coca-Cola for a long time.

487,000 Employees
Somehow I doubt that statistic.

"Deep fried" say it!
Does anyone else find it odd that this article contains none of the following words: deep, fried, fat, batter, dipped, oil? Harvard Birdman 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it has almost no discussion of the food whatsoever. The article is almost entirely about the business.  The lede does describe the cuisine as fish and chips, and the topic sentence for that article contains several of the words you list.  -- Coneslayer 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
"The restaurant chain was the subject of some controversy in the late 1990s for a commercial in which a police officer decided not to write a ticket to a motorist who gave him a Long John Silver's fish sandwich. Many police organizations objected to the commercial on the grounds that it depicted a police officer taking a bribe."

Does this really need to be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand
From the referenced website (accessed 02/06/10) http://www.ljs.co.nz/wa.asp?idWebPage=18259 What connection does LJS have with Long John Silvers in the USA? None at all; LJS is a completely NZ founded, owned and operated business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.151.185 (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Decreased Pirate Theme
''Originally, the chain had a much larger focus on a pirate theme. For example, the chain used to offer small chicken drumsticks which they called "peg-legs", but now offer small chicken fingers known as "Chicken Planks".'' Is going from "peg-legs" to "planks" really an example of moving away from the pirate theme? Planks (as in "walk the plank") are equally associated with pirates.

--12.19.148.66 (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

request edit The last paragraph of the History section is not correct. The citation does not lead to an actual article at USAToday. The link is broken. A search of USAToday yields no stories similar or with any of this information in it. Please delete this paragraph and the citation as it is false.

"Since divesting from Yum! Brands in October 2011, the Long John Silver's brand has seen a steady increase in sales, market share, and net worth. The brand currently is looking to upscale the brand with new stores opening in Fall 2013 through Winter 2014/2015 and a complete makeover of all franchise stores through 2016. However the chain is currently fighting a reputation that their food is unappealing, and the fact that half of their locations have been shut down at times by health departments.[4]"

Tl48xray (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of this was fixed some time ago. I have fixed the dead link and removed the above paragraph. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Menu Items
The company announced August 28, 2013 that the seafood chain has begun switching all U.S. restaurants to trans fat free cooking oil by the end of 2013. http://www.ljsilvers.com/news-events http://www.ljsilvers.com/images/pdfs/ljs-removes-trans-fat.pdf Tl48xray (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has already been updated. Altamel (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Half of Locations shutdown by health departments?
"However the chain is currently fighting a reputation that their food is unappealing, and the fact that half of their locations have been shut down at times by health departments.[4]"

I find this hard to believe and wonder if this is vandalism. The cite given redirects to an unavailable host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.20.8 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Fates of Pre-2011 Restaurants

 * Does anyone know what's going to happen to any Long John Silver's restaurants that were built cobranded with KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, or A&W. Since Long John Silver's isn't owned by Yum! Brands anymore and A&W was bought by A Great American Brand. Will they close down all together? Would the restaurant become a self operating KFC/Taco Bell/Pizza Hut/or A&W store? The restaurant in Kent, Ohio became a self Taco Bell restaurant. 24.147.1.197 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Long John Silver's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150815151003/http://www.ljsilvers.com/menu/ to http://www.ljsilvers.com/menu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect first store open date
The article states that the first LJS restaurant opened on April 16, 1969. The actual date of opening of the first unit was August 18, 1969. I include for reference a photo of a plaque hanging in the corporate office in Louisville. Disclosure: I work for LJS' PR agency. Ask me questions or let me know if clarification is needed regarding this post. Tl48xray (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to August 18. — Maile (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2016/06/06 Edit
I removed the following: "Long John Silver's had only two New York City locations (in Manhattan and eastern Queens), but they are no longer in business.". I felt the focus on one particular geographical location to be arbitrary and without notability except to those in that particular geographical location. One could easily add in the fact that there was only one store in Ames Iowa which is now closed as being notable if the same reasoning was valid. I believe that it is not.THX1136 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2016 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Long John Silvers logo.jpg

title: Talk:Long John Silver's


text:
Jack McDevitt

Jack McDevitt (born April 14, 1935) is an American science fiction author whose novels frequently deal with attempts to make contact with alien races, and with archaeology or xenoarchaeology. Most of his books follow either superluminal pilot Priscilla "Hutch" Hutchins or galactic relic hunters Alex Benedict and Chase Kolpath. McDevitt has received numerous nominations for Hugo, Nebula, and John W. Campbell awards. Seeker won the 2006 Nebula Award for Best Novel.

McDevitt's first published story was "The Emerson Effect" in The Twilight Zone Magazine in 1981.

Biography
McDevitt went to La Salle University, where a short story of his won the annual Freshman Short Story Contest and was published in the school's literary magazine, Four Quarters. As McDevitt explained in an interview:

"I was on my way. Then I read David Copperfield and realized I could never write at that level, and therefore I should find something else to do. I joined the Navy, drove a cab, became an English teacher, took a customs inspector's job on the northern border, and didn't write another word for a quarter-century."

McDevitt received a master's degree in literature from Wesleyan University in 1971. He returned to writing when his wife, Maureen, encouraged him to try his hand at it in 1980. , McDevitt lives near Brunswick, Georgia. In 2005, he donated his archive to the department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Northern Illinois University. The novel Seeker won the 2006 Nebula Award for Best Novel, given by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. He has been nominated for the Nebula Award sixteen times; Seeker is his only win.

Themes
With The Engines of God (1994), McDevitt introduced the idea of a universe that was once teeming with intelligent life, but contains only their abandoned artifacts by the time humans arrive on the scene. The main character of The Engines of God, pilot Priscilla Hutchins, has since appeared in seven more books, Deepsix (2001), Chindi (2002), Omega (2003), Odyssey (2006), Cauldron (2007), StarHawk (2013), and The Long Sunset (2018). The mystery surrounding the destructive "Omega Clouds" (which are introduced in The Engines of God) is left unexplored until Omega.

McDevitt's novels frequently raise questions which he does not attempt to answer. He prefers to leave ambiguities to puzzle and intrigue his readers: "Some things are best left to the reader's very able imagination." The SF Site's Steven H Silver has written about this:

"McDevitt has a (probably unintentional) tendency to give the impression that his novels will go in one direction and then take them in a different direction. Or possibly his background is so well thought out, that throw away lines, or subplots, or minor characters, have enough information behind them to make the reader want to see their story as much as the main plot of the book. While slightly annoying, this is, I've decided, a strength of McDevitt's writing since it shows the depth of his created worlds."

Novels

 * The Hercules Text (1986), a revised version was also published as part of Hello Out There
 * Eternity Road (1998)
 * Moonfall (1998)
 * Infinity Beach (2000), UK title Slow Lightning
 * Time Travelers Never Die (2009)
 * The Cassandra Project (2012) with Mike Resnick

Academy Series - Priscilla "Hutch" Hutchins

 * StarHawk (2013), prequel ISBN 0-425-26085-2
 * The Engines of God (1994), book 1 ISBN 0-441-00077-0
 * Deepsix (2001), book 2 ISBN 0-06-105124-1
 * Chindi (2002), book 3 ISBN 0-441-00938-7
 * Omega (2003), book 4 ISBN 0-441-01046-6
 * Odyssey (2006), book 5 ISBN 0-441-01433-X
 * Cauldron (2007), book 6 ISBN 0-441-01525-5
 * The Long Sunset (2018), book 7 ISBN 1-481-49793-6

The short stories "Melville on Iapetus" (1983), "Promises to Keep" (1984), "Oculus" (2002), "The Big Downtown" (2005), "Kaminsky at War" (2006), "Maiden Voyage" (2012), "Waiting at the Altar" (2012), and "The Cat's Pajamas" (2012) are also set in the Academy universe.

Alex Benedict

 * A Talent for War (1989), also published as part of Hello Out There
 * Polaris (2004) ISBN 0-441-01202-7
 * Seeker (2005), winner of Nebula Award for Best Novel, ISBN 0-441-01329-5
 * The Devil's Eye (2008) ISBN 0-441-01635-9
 * Echo (2010) ISBN 0-441-01924-2
 * Firebird (November 1, 2011) ISBN 0-441-02073-9
 * Octavia Gone (May 7, 2019) ISBN 0-481-49797-8
 * Village in the Sky (Gallery Publishing Group/Saga Press, January 31, 2023) ISBN 978-1-66800-429-6
 * Village in the Sky (Gallery Publishing Group/Saga Press, January 31, 2023) ISBN 978-1-66800-429-6

The short stories "In the Tower" (1987) and "A Voice in the Night" (2013) are also set in the Alex Benedict universe.

Ancient Shores

 * Ancient Shores (1996)
 * Thunderbird (2015)
 * Doorway to the Stars (scheduled for a February 2024 release)

Collections

 * Standard Candles (Tachyon Publications, 1996)
 * Hello Out There (Meisha Merlin, 2000), omnibus edition of A Talent for War and a revised The Hercules Text
 * Ships in the Night (AAB, 2005)
 * Outbound (ISFiC Press, 2006) ISBN 0-9759156-4-9
 * Cryptic: The Best Short Fiction of Jack McDevitt (Subterranean Press, February 2009) ISBN 978-1-59606-195-8
 * A Voice in the Night (Subterranean Press, August 2018) ISBN 978-1-59606-880-3
 * Return to Glory (Subterranean Press, October 2022)

Awards and nominations

 * Nebula Best Short Story nominee (1983) : Cryptic
 * Philip K. Dick Award (special citation) (1986) : The Hercules Text
 * Nebula Best Short Story nominee (1988) : "The Fort Moxie Branch"
 * Hugo Best Short Story nominee (1989) : "The Fort Moxie Branch"
 * International UPC Science Fiction Award winner (1993) : "Ships in the Night" (first English language winner)
 * Nebula Best Novella nominee (1996) : "Time Travelers Never Die"
 * Arthur C. Clarke Best Novel nominee (1997) : Engines of God
 * Hugo Best Novella nominee (1997) : "Time Travelers Never Die"
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (1997) : Ancient Shores
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (1998) : Moonfall
 * Nebula Best Novelette nominee (1999) : "Good Intentions" (co-writer Stanley Schmidt)
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2000) : Infinity Beach
 * John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Novel nominee (2001) : Infinity Beach
 * John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Novel nominee (2002) : Deepsix
 * Nebula Best Short Story nominee (2002) : "Nothing Ever Happens in Rock City"
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2003) : Chindi
 * Campbell Award winner (2004) : Omega
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2004) : Omega
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2005) : Polaris
 * Nebula Best Novel winner (2006) : Seeker
 * John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Novel nominee (2006) : Seeker
 * John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Novel nominee (2007) : Odyssey
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2007) : Odyssey
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2008) : Cauldron
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2010) : Echo
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2011) : Firebird
 * Nebula Best Novel nominee (2014) : Coming Home
 * Robert A. Heinlein Award winner (2015)

title: Jack McDevitt


text:
Talk:Foundation ontology

Unsorted text
And it's possible that it won't. What has this have to do with foundation ontology

 * It is possible that nuclear weapons proliferation or some form of biological warfare technology could alter the consensus regarding physics and its foundation position in the sciences. In 2002 controversies and acrimony over the "censoring of science" useful to "terrorists" have emerged.  Some consider this a threat to the objectivity of science itself.

 * Most scientists consider this a remote possibility. But political factors, and reliance on a small number of similarly-constructured experimental apparatus has been an issue in science since Galileo, when the Moons of Jupiter were considered by some to be possibly be an artifact of the optics of the telescope.  Theories that are only empirically tested by a small elite community in control of its funding and peer review, and closely controlled by authority, have historically been scientifically suspect.

- I'm getting frustrated here.....

 * Some anti-reductionists are concerned with cognitive bias, e.g. observer effects, and hold that the ontology should be composed of inclusion and exclusion operations, rather than of the objects included and excluded, e.g. a quantum physicist observing an entanglement must do so indirectly, keeping careful track of the observation timings, as they alter the particles seen!

ARRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

There is a interesting debate within the physics community over the fundamental nature of the universe. I'm trying to explain what the debate is over in NPOV terms. Someone who clearly doesn't know what the debate is about, keeps changing that section and attributing views and issues which are not what the physicists are arguing over.

I have issues with the first statement. It seems to imply that there is a cultural group out there with no scientists in it.

The second sentence also has problems. Define deep. Deep to whom?

 * However, no foundation ontology seems to be universally accepted by all peoples. The field of ethno-mathematics? is the most rigorous study of the variations, especially as understood by indigenous peoples.  But the deepest empirical investigations follow the Western rational scientific method:

- I also have extremely big problems with the term *Western* rational scientific method. One could get into a big argument over whether science started in the West, but I strongly object to the notion that it is a *Western* mode of thought now. After all, Chinese and Japanese people have won Nobel prizes in physics.

- Can't one apply a Gödel-like argument to the statement "a foundation ontology is not provable" and conclude that foundation ontologies must be incomplete. If so, then what's all this fuss? The topic is a dead end street. -- Olof

Taking an engineering view .... approximations are extremely useful in staying on the leading edge of better approximations that are useful in various human activities such as technology, propaganda, warfare, education, etc.

The topic, even if called something else is a dead end street only for those who do not evolve useful ontologies.

For example: perhaps I should go start a series of articles on useful worldviews and start my own school of thought .... solution domain elements .... set theory ..... something .... then I could begin on my Wikipedia biography documenting myself as someone useful to have had around in the early 21st Century .... or I can join the fray over ontology .... decisions ... decisions ... user:mirwin

As it became clear that theology could vary drastically in all aspects except foundation ontology, a philosophy of science evolved to explain this stability

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "metaphysics" istead of "theology"?

Finally, I'm going to weigh in on this (to me) bizarre article. I've studied ontology a fair bit (in the good old fashioned philosophical sense of the term), both historical and contemporary, and I have never heard the term "foundation ontology" used by philosophers before. I see from this Google search that the phrase "foundation ontology" sometimes appears in connection to this computer science project and some other technical projects. But that's clearly not the sense in which "24" was using "foundation ontology"; he was using it as if it were a well-accepted, oft-used term in philosophy. As far as I know, it ain't.

I suspect this is an attempt at a new coinage, by someone who knows just enough philosophy to sound slightly plausible to non-philosophers, and that it really belongs in the garbage can. Does anyone have strong opinions otherwise?

By no means am I suggesting that we simply toss it out without further consideration. I agree with everyone who says that deleting articles must be done slowly and prudently, and we should take care to preserve all useful content. I suspect some of the physics content might belong in a physics or philosophy of physics article (I just don't know enough to give reliable advice on that). But as for the term and the definition of it, and the casting of an issue in terms of this term, I think "24" more or less pulled a fast one on yez. :-/ --Larry Sanger

 * Yeah, I think this is just the intellectual detritus of our anonymous friend, and can be removed with little controversy now. --LDC

Larry, I agree with you. I studied philosophy too, and this article looks like largely nonsense to me. A hotch-potch of some dubious and not very closely related ideas, under a heading I've not heard of before (other than in computer science). I'd be happy for most of this article to go, except possibly for an explanation of foundation ontology in the computer science sense - though that would be little more than a dictionary definition and is probably covered adequately in the Ontology (computer science) article. Ben Finn 20:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK then, below is the original article. Can we now delete it altogether? I would, but (blissfully) I lack administrative permissions. :-) --Larry Sanger

A foundation ontology purports to describe "what exists", to a sufficient degree of rigor to establish a reasonable method of empirical validation.

Acceptance of these tends to vary drastically from culture to culture: classical Greek and Roman civilization assumed for example that "earth, air, fire, and water" sufficiently described the elements, while 19th century scientists considered the periodic table to be a solid foundation ontology describing all atoms that could exist. As it became clear that theology could vary drastically in all aspects except foundation ontology, a philosophy of science evolved to explain this stability. Over time mathematics became accepted as a neutral point of view.

Within the physics community, the two most common foundation ontologies are the reductionist position, which is held most strongly by particle physicists, and the anti-reductionist position, which tends to be held by solid state physicists. The reductionist position is that one can understand the universe by examining its most basic components and how they interact - producing a foundation and from this understanding derive (even only in principle) an understanding of how the entire universe works. The particle physics foundation ontology is thus one of parts and linkages.

The anti-reductionist position among physicists is that collections of objects sometimes exhibit behaviors which are independent of the objects themselves. Therefore it is incorrect to think of the objects as more fundamental than the collections of objects. It is important to note that this particular debate between reductionists or anti-reductionists does not involve the nature of scientific truth, the process of science, the role of mathematics in science, or any issues involving interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Another debate within the scientific community is between scientists who hold to the Copernican principle and those who believe some variation of the anthropic principle. The Copernican principle states that there is nothing special about the human location in the universe. The anthropic principle on the other hand argues that the universe is special because there are human observers in it and from the existence of human observers one can deduce the properties of the universe.

It may also be that the acts of counting and trusting each other's cognition are more fundamental than the output of any experimental apparatus, or any theory that can be expressed numerically. That is, that the universe may actually be built out of some form of trust, perhaps down to the molecules and entanglement bonds. Although this view is associated with theology, it has increasingly impacted ecology, notably via the Gaia theory, and more deeply biology through the work of Edward O. Wilson, who seeks "a biological basis for morality".

In physics, this view has come to be associated with Lee Smolin and the "fecund universe" theory. In this foundation ontology, new universes are formed "on the other side" of black holes as stars collapse, and vary in their foundation parameters much as bacteria vary slightly in their genetic makeup from their parent. Universes with such life-like characteristics may not just be passive containers of objects, living or otherwise, but "exhibit behaviors which are independent of the objects themselves," i.e. be "alive".

External links:

 * Closeminded Science
 * "The End of Science Writing", Jon Franklin
 * "SETI@Arecibo: How do we know the Darn Thing Works?" Seth Shvostak

If you're talking about permanent, history-zapping deletion, please don't. This page and its talk have some significance in Wikipedia's history. Matthew Woodcraft

I'll bite: how exactly does this page have any significance in Wikipedia's history, other than the fact that a particularly odious troll, once in our recent history, wrote the page and bandied his invented term about, fooling a lot of nonphilosophers into thinking that they were adding important human knowledge about a term of actual philosophical jargon?

Anyway, haven't we written a delete function that allows histories to be saved? Or is it only that delete functions are "undoable" so they can be resurrected but not moved?

In that case, I suggest we move the article and its history to some place (not Wikipedia) where it has relevance to Wikipedia's history. It isn't an encyclopedia article. Maybe the Wikipedia: namespace. --Larry Sanger

''Yes, what you describe is the history I was thinking of. How we deal with such things is important.''

''If we do have delete which preserves history, by all means let's delete. Otherwise I agree that moving it would be best.'' Matthew Woodcraft

I'm trying to understand: how we deal with what things is important? Please be explicit. --Larry Sanger

---

 * This is discussed further in the article on foundations of mathematics.

No it's not, at least not explicitly. The word "ontology" does not appear there. Is someone here knowledgable enough to work it in in a congenial and appropriate manner? Otherwise, should that sentence change to a mere "see also:"? GTBacchus 19:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dubious stuff cut today
Since this article has hardly been touched for 3 years, I cut all of the stuff below which looks spurious - like rather dubious "original research". From a bit of a search I couldn't find anything much on the Internet about 'foundation ontology' in these cosmological senses, other than endless references to this article! Ben Finn 20:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A foundation ontology purports to describe "what exists", to a sufficient degree of rigor to establish a reasonable method of empirical validation.

Upper ontologies are for abstract, fundamental concepts that are found to be common elements of many lower ontologies, an example being: let's say we have some ontologies, one expressing concepts "higher and lower", another expressing "above and below", another expresssing "superior and inferior". Then an upper ontology would very carefully express the abstract concepts needed to link and distinguish these, so that you can decide whether an attempt to translate or apply concepts from one ontology to another is meaningful.

Acceptance of these tends to vary drastically from culture to culture: classical Greek and Roman civilization assumed for example that "earth, air, fire, and water" sufficiently described the elements, while 19th century scientists considered the periodic table to be a solid foundation ontology describing all atoms that could exist. As it became clear that theology could vary drastically in all aspects except foundation ontology, a philosophy of science evolved to explain this stability. Over time mathematics became accepted as a neutral point of view.

Within the physics community, the two most common foundation ontologies are the reductionist position, which is held most strongly by particle physicists, and the anti-reductionist position, which tends to be held by solid state physicists. The reductionist position is that one can understand the universe by examining its most basic components and how they interact - producing a foundation and from this understanding derive (even only in principle) an understanding of how the entire universe works. The particle physics foundation ontology is thus one of parts and linkages.

The anti-reductionist position among physicists is that collections of objects sometimes exhibit behaviors which are independent of the objects themselves. Therefore it is incorrect to think of the objects as more fundamental than the collections of objects. It is important to note that this particular debate between reductionists or anti-reductionists does not involve the nature of scientific truth, the process of science, the role of mathematics in science, or any issues involving interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Another debate within the scientific community is between scientists who hold to the Copernican principle and those who believe some variation of the anthropic principle. The Copernican principle states that there is nothing special about the human location in the universe. The anthropic principle on the other hand argues that the universe is special because there are human observers in it and from the existence of human observers one can deduce the properties of the universe.

It may also be that the acts of counting and trusting each other's cognition are more fundamental than the output of any experimental apparatus, or any theory that can be expressed numerically. That is, that the universe may actually be built out of some form of trust, perhaps down to the molecules and entanglement bonds. Although this view is associated with theology, it has increasingly impacted ecology, notably via the Gaia theory, and more deeply biology through the work of Edward O. Wilson, who seeks "a biological basis for morality".

In physics, this view has come to be associated with Lee Smolin and the "fecund universe" theory. In this foundation ontology, new universes are formed "on the other side" of black holes as stars collapse, and vary in their foundation parameters much as bacteria vary slightly in their genetic makeup from their parent. Universes with such life-like characteristics may not just be passive containers of objects, living or otherwise, but "exhibit behaviors which are independent of the objects themselves," i.e. be "alive".

...

The term 'standard ontology' should never be used, as any reference to an ontology implies completeness by some definition, and the inability of a system based on one 'standard' to communicate with a system based on any other such 'standard'. Accordingly, the term foundation ontology should be used in all three (philosophy, theology or computer science) senses of the term ontology.

Definition
The article says: ...attempts to describe those general entities that do not belong to a specific problem domain (emphasis on 'not' added).

Should that instead say it describes those items that do belong? RJFJR 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Foundation or Foundational?
I don't know if there is such a thing as a foundation ontology but I know there are foundational ontologies... and there is a nice piece of info on the web about them (simply google for it). So maybe the discussion has to be reconsidered with foundational ontologies rather than foundation ontologies. LaurentPrevot 07:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Foundation ontology


text:
Talk:Sushi

California Roll
Does anyone know the origins of the California Roll? I know that its a Westernization of traditional sushi but was it actually invented in California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.240.187 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably... read the California roll article. 107.77.202.209 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Sushi In Asia" section seems a bit off
The Sushi In Asia section only contains 1 subsection: Sushi in South Korea. To me, this seems odd. Is there any way to expand this section to make it seem less barren? Or perhaps move the Sushi in South Korea section to another part of the page and get rid of this section altogether. It just seems silly to have this as is since there's not that much content there.

Regional Styles, from list of ingredients
I think that the "Regional Styles" section from over at List_of_sushi_and_sashimi_ingredients belongs here, since that is simply a list of ingredients. Challenger l (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description
In this edit, User:35.134.146.62 reverted my short description "Japanese dish of rice and usually fish" (38 chars) to the longer "Portioned prepared vinegared rice topped or rolled with other ingredients" (73 chars), with the Edit summary "The short description is too narrow, calls it a dish, and makes fish too prominent."

Short descriptions are supposed to be limited to roughly 40 characters; the long version here is far too long.

Also, the long description is a definition, which is not the purpose of an SD (WP:HOWTOSD). It also doesn't mention by far the most common form of sushi known to most non-Japanese. I don't see that "usually fish" makes "fish too prominent". Yes, of course there are many forms of sushi that don't contain fish, which I think is reasonably covered by "usually".

It also seems essential to say that it is a dish in Japanese cuisine, which is after all what the lead of the article already calls it. I don't know why .62 objects to the term "dish".

I suppose a more technically accurate SD that fits the 40-character limit would be "Japanese dish of vinegared rice" (31 chars), but I'm not sure that conveys the sense to most of our readers. For that matter, "Japanese dish" would technically be a correct SD, but doesn't communicate as effectively. --Macrakis (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 * As there has been no objection, I have put the fish back in the short description. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the word "traditional", which adds nothing, and also "usually", which is just pedantic. As I said above, a short description is not intended to be a complete definition. --Macrakis (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oshizushi
I changed the image of oshi-zushi. The previous image is not oshi-zushi. It is the image of california rolls that imitated the style of oshi-zushi. But unfortunately someone reverted my edit. So I changed the image again. --Vh523x4 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

HEALTH RISKS - regarding the paragraph on EU regulations
Hi, I checked the source for this sentence "For these reasons, EU regulations forbid the use of fresh raw fish. It must be frozen at temperatures below −20 °C (−4 °F) in all parts of the product for no less than 24 hours.'" and have to report a potential factual error. The relevant segment of said EU regulation details specifically the treatment of Bivalve Molluscs and not all raw fish. This source appears to be a set of expansions on a pre-existing set of hygiene regulations that may cover raw fish but did not detail the specifics regarding bivalve molluscs and a few other specific areas and needed expansion via this document. Either we need to change the source for this phrase or we need to remove the phrase if no source can be found. 2A02:A03F:8A3F:AB00:A81E:74FD:AF6F:A529 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Can we have a source link for your statement? Thank you! JthomasP (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm of the opinion that an assertion without evidence may be equally dismissed without evidence. Challenger l (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Also commonly called a "Caterpillar Roll", its avocado exterior resembles the scales of a dragon."
Is that a fact? Drsruli (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sushi


text:
Sashimi

Sashimi (刺身) is a Japanese delicacy consisting of fresh raw fish or meat sliced into thin pieces and often eaten with soy sauce.

Origin
The word sashimi means 'pierced body', i.e., "刺身" = sashimi, where 刺 し = sashi (pierced, stuck) and 身 = mi (body, meat). This word dates from the Muromachi period (1336-1573) and was possibly coined when the word "切る" = kiru (cut), the culinary step, was considered too inauspicious to be used by anyone other than a samurai. This word may derive from the culinary practice of sticking the fish's tail and fin to the slices for the purpose of identifying the fish being eaten.

Another possibility for the name is the traditional method of harvesting. "Sashimi-grade" fish is caught by individual handline. As soon as the fish is landed, its brain is pierced with a sharp spike, and it is placed in slurried ice. This spiking is called the ikejime process, and the instantaneous death means that the fish's flesh contains a minimal amount of lactic acid. This means that the fish will keep fresh on ice for about ten days, without turning white or otherwise degrading.

Many non-Japanese use the terms sashimi and sushi interchangeably, but the two dishes are distinct and separate. Sushi refers to any dish made with vinegared rice. While raw fish is one traditional sushi ingredient, many sushi dishes contain seafood that has been cooked, and others have no seafood at all, including ingredients like seaweed and vegetables. Sashimi, by contrast, is always served on its own. Although Japan has long had the custom of eating fish raw, the idea of serving it as a beautifully arranged dish is thought to have come from China, probably around the Kamakura period (1185–1333). An early cookbook in Japanese, written in 1489, directs that the raw flesh should be sliced and mixed with vinegar and seasonings such as salt and herbs.

An early western description of sashimi comes from a letter written by the future Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Arthur Wilson of the Royal Navy, who was assigned to the British naval mission to Japan in the late 1860s: "It is a peculiar sort of fish, which they cut in very thin slices and serve up with some sort of sauce over it. It is considered a great delicacy. I have tried it and did not find it bad, but the idea is not nice."

Serving

Sashimi is often the first course in a formal Japanese meal, but it can also be the main course, presented with rice and miso soup in separate bowls. Japanese chefs consider sashimi the finest dish in Japanese formal dining and recommend that it be eaten before other strong flavors affect the palate.

The sliced seafood that composes the main ingredient is typically draped over a garnish. The typical garnish is Asian white radish, daikon, shredded into long thin strands, or single leaves of the herb shiso (perilla). Garnishes for sashimi are generally called tsuma and may also include slices of other raw vegetables, such as cucumbers and carrots, as well as seaweeds, flowers and leaves and stems of other plants.

Sashimi is popularly served with a dipping sauce (soy sauce) and condiments such as wasabi paste, grated fresh ginger, gari or pickled ginger, grated fresh garlic, or ponzu for meat sashimi, and such garnishes as shiso and shredded daikon radish. Wasabi paste is sometimes mixed directly into soy sauce as a dipping sauce, which is generally not done when eating sushi (which itself normally includes wasabi). A reputed motivation for serving wasabi with sashimi and also gari, besides its flavor, is killing harmful bacteria and parasites that could be present in raw seafood.

Preparation
To highlight the delicate flavor as well as for texture, the chef cuts fish into different thicknesses by variety of the fish, its age and by the season. The hira-zukuri cut (literally 'flat slice'), is the standard cut for most sashimi. Typically this style of cut is the size of a domino and 3/8 in thick. Tuna, salmon, and kingfish are most commonly cut in this style. The usu-zukuri cut (literally 'thin slice'), is an extremely thin, diagonally cut slice that is mostly used to cut firm fish, such as bream, whiting, and flounder. The dimensions of this cut are usually 2 in long and 1/16 in wide. The kaku-zukuri cut (literally 'square slice'), is the style in which sashimi is cut into small cubes that are 3/4 in on each side. The ito-zukuri cut (literally 'thread slice'), is the style in which the fish is cut into fine strips, less than 1/16 in in diameter. The fish typically cut with the ito-zukuri style include garfish and squid;  squid dish prepared in ito-zukuri is also called ika sōmen and is dipped in dashi or men-tsuyu like eating sōmen noodle.

Varieties
Popular main ingredients for sashimi include:
 * Salmon (鮭)
 * Squid (いか)
 * Shrimp (えび)
 * Tuna (マグロ)
 * Mackerel (さば)
 * Horse mackerel (あじ)
 * Octopus (たこ)
 * Fatty tuna (おおとろ)
 * Yellowtail (はまち)
 * Scallop (ほたて貝)
 * Sea urchin (ウニ)

Some sashimi ingredients, such as octopus, are sometimes served cooked given their chewy nature. Most seafood, such as tuna, salmon, and squid, are served raw. Tataki (たたき or 叩き, 'pounded') is a type of sashimi that is quickly and lightly seared on the outside, leaving it raw inside.

Ingredients other than raw fish meat
Food cut into small pieces and eaten with wasabi and soy sauce may be called sashimi in Japan, including the following ingredients. Like bamboo shoots, the food is enjoyed raw to appreciate the freshness, and producers and farmers offer those sashimi at their properties in top season. Some of the vegetables are enjoyed as thin sliced strips and called sashimi while they resemble fish meat, like avocado as salmon and konnyaku as puffer fish.

Less common, but not unusual, sashimi ingredients are vegetarian items, such as yuba (bean curd skin), and raw red meats, such as beef (known as gyuunotataki) or horse (known as basashi). Chicken "sashimi" (known as toriwasa) is considered by some to be a delicacy; the Nagoya kōchin, French poulet de Bresse and its American derivative, the blue foot chicken, are favored by many for this purpose, as, besides their taste, they are certified to be free of Salmonella. Chicken sashimi is sometimes slightly braised or seared on the outside.

 * Vegetable
 * Avocado: served as "avocado sashimi", it is considered to have a texture similar to raw or slightly salted fatty salmon. It is eaten with wasabi soy sauce.
 * Bamboo shoots: farmers of bamboo grove serves takenoko in course menu, and sashimi is almost always entered during the high season of harvest.
 * Japanese radish: among many varieties of vegetables eaten fresh, it is said that the flavor stands out when tasted within a couple of hours after harvesting, and called sashimi vegetables instead of very fresh salad.
 * Konnyaku: cut into short thin strips resembling puffer fish meat, thus called yama fugu (mountain puffer fish) in some regions. Served with vinegar and miso, wasabi and soy sauce, vinegar and soy sauce.
 * Yuba, or tofu skin: while there are restaurants where customers cook their own yuba and eat while it is hot, yuba-sashi or sashimi of yuba is chilled and served with wasabi soy sauce or vinegar miso.

Beef, pork, and poultry: bought from licensed butchers and processors, those were served raw, and cases are that the restaurant offer slightly cooked meat as sashimi to avoid high risk of food poisoning and parasite infection, by treating meat in boiling water (yubiki) or braised with gas torch (aburi). Served with ponzu citrus vinegar.
 * Meat

 * Chicken meat (toriwasa) is thinly sliced Nagoya kōchin flesh, liver, heart and gizzard.
 * Chiragaa: boiled face skin of pork, served with vinegar and miso sauce, also served as Okinawa cuisine.
 * Goat meat: Okinawa cuisine, served with soy sauce and grated ginger.
 * Horse meat: offered with grated garlic and soy sauce.
 * Mimigaa: boiled ears of pork, also served as Okinawa cuisine.
 * Offal: advised to buy from meat processors or restaurants with licenses, as fatal food poisoning happened in Japan with beef liver.
 * Wild meat: boar as Okinawa cuisine consumed on Iriomote and Ishigaki islands and boiled meat is served. Deer meat.

 * Others
 * Fishcake: one among the express menu on izakaya menu, offered as Itawasa. Sliced into 1 cm thick strips, and eat with wasabi and soy sauce.
 * Seaweed: wakame is in strict sense not eaten raw but dipped in boiling water for a few seconds, and enjoyed the fresh green color, with wasabi soy sauce. Marinating with vinegar and miso sauce is popular as well.

Safety
As a raw food, consuming sashimi can result in foodborne illness when bacteria or parasites are present; for example, anisakiasis is a disease caused by the accidental ingestion of larval nematodes in the family Anisakidae, primarily Anisakis simplex but also Pseudoterranova decipiens. In addition, incorrectly prepared Fugu fish may contain tetrodotoxin, a potent neurotoxin.

Another type of food borne illness that could occur after consuming tainted sashimi is Diphyllobothriasis. This disease is an infection within the intestines that occurs when the tapeworm Diphyllobothrium latum is consumed. Common fish such as trout, salmon, pike, and sea bass harbor this parasitic larva in their muscles. Since the innovation of the chilled transport system paired with the salmon and trout consumption, an increasing number of cases have been recorded annually in northern Japan due to the spread of this disease.

Traditionally, fish that spend at least part of their lives in brackish or fresh water were considered unsuitable for sashimi because of the possibility of parasites. For example, salmon, an anadromous fish, is not traditionally eaten straight out of the river. A study in Seattle, Washington, showed that all wild salmon had roundworm larvae capable of infecting people, while farm-raised salmon did not have any roundworm larvae. However a study commissioned by the Pew Foundation found that total organic contaminants were consistently and significantly more concentrated in the farmed salmon as a group than in wild salmon.

Freezing is often used to kill parasites. According to European Union regulations, freezing fish at −20 °C (−4 °F) for 24 hours kills parasites. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends freezing at −35 °C (−31 °F) for 15 hours, or at −20 °C (−4 °F) for 7 days.

While Canada does not federally regulate freezing fish, British Columbia and Alberta voluntarily adhere to guidelines similar to the FDA's. Ontario attempted to legislate freezing as part of raw food handling requirements, though this was soon withdrawn due to protests by the industry that the subtle flavors and texture of raw fish would be destroyed by freezing. Instead, Ontario has decided to consider regulations on how raw fish must be handled prior to serving.

Some fish for sashimi are treated with carbon monoxide to keep the flesh red for a longer time in storage. This practice can make spoiled fish appear fresh.

Eating chicken sashimi is a serious food poisoning risk. Despite it being on menus, it is hard to find, and many chefs cook it incorrectly. Chicken sashimi is also often sourced at certain restaurants from the thigh, liver and outer breast.

Environmental concerns
With the constant amount of fishing, bluefin tuna population rates have been steadily declining. A proposed solution has been farming bluefin tuna in fisheries. Historically, this has posed a problem in that the captive fish are not raised from spawn, but rather from small wild fish that are netted and transported to the farms, mostly in the Mediterranean. However, Japanese scientists have found a way to successfully breed and raise the fish entirely in captivity.

title: Sashimi


text:
Talk:Foundation Trilogy

What are the four new volumes of the trilogy? And is it now a septilogy?

I'd like to know more about how Al-Quaeda name could be related to the Foundation ? I can't remember anything sounding like "Al-Quaeda", nor anything related to Arabs ? But maybe it's only because I only read the French version of Second Foundation and the term is only used in this book ? But anyway... great book.

 * Never mind... Al Quaeda means The Foundation.

 * Yeah, "Al-Qaeda" is the Arabic translation of "Foundation" and literally means "the Base." I find the theory that Osama bin Laden was influeced by the Foundation Trilogy to be ridiculous, however.  The connections suggested are extremely tenuous and there are lessons in the books that are very contrary to al-Qaeda's ideology. Jacob1207 17:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Foundation Trilogy


text:
Talk:Sashimi

Difference between sushi and sashimi?
Can you have something that is both sushi and sashimi? According to the article, "sushi refers to any dish made with vinegared rice", while sashimi "consists of very fresh raw meat or fish, sliced into thin pieces" and is in the English language "often used to refer to other uncooked fish preparations". What if you make a dish with (very fresh) raw meat or fish, sliced into thin pieces and vinegared rice, would that be both sushi and sashimi? And another question, must sashimi contain only raw ingredients? —Kri (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: Can you have something that is both sushi and sashimi?

Answer: No. Reason as you say yourself. Sushi refers to any dish made with vinegared rice. Sushi itself actually means vinegared rice, and does not have to contain meat. Sashimi, like you say, would refer to the raw fish meat itself. If you eat the meat alone without the rice it is sashimi, however once the rice is added it becomes sushi.

Question: Must sashimi contain only raw ingredients?

Answer: Yes. Sashimi itself is raw food, although it does not always have to be fish or seafood at all. The word itself comes from a combination of the word "sashi" meaning pierced, and "mi" meaning body. This refers back to the way the fish were originially preppared and eaten. Today, you can get a number of different types of meat when eating sashimi, such as frog, beef, and horse for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.207.102.71 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sashimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100202030759/http://www.crfa.ca:80/news/2004/raw_fish_permitted_in_ontario.asp to http://www.crfa.ca/news/2004/raw_fish_permitted_in_ontario.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

= Pronunciation =

The pronunciation /səˈʃiːmiː/ ('suh-SHEE-mee') is an English distortion of the original Japanese, based on how it's rendered in Latin letters. In Japanese it's the 'a' that has the stress, and the first 'i' is barely heard ('SASH-mee'). Of course it's up to English-speakers how they want to pronounce it in English, but the way the pronunciation is presented here - right after the Japanese letters - implies that this is the correct Japanese way to say it. The letters 'i' and 'u' often become inaudible in Japanese, but English-speakers tend to put the stress on them. Another common example is pronouncing 'tempura' as 'tem-POO-rah', which in Japanese sounds more like 'TEMP-ra'.213.127.210.95 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Intertwine Group Review
We believe this article provides some good useful information about Sashimi, including some great etymology into the Japanese origin of Sashimi. There could have been more written in the lead section to make it more clear to the reader - with more citations and references, there is only one line before they break out into different sections. The viewpoints regarding the health and safety seem biased and have a strong tone leaning towards one direction, rather than a neutral view presenting both sides of the story. All the information in the origin needs a citation. It could be taken down since it doesn't have a source. Not that its incorrect, but there's nothing for anyone to go off of other than it's an assumptive definition In the "Origin" section of the article, there needs to be a citation inserted for "Sashimi-grade" as well as a hyperlink if possible because it is a term used elsewhere which the reader could benefit from, and there are specific guidelines for what is counted as Sashimi grade. In terms of citations, in order to make this a more robust article that is substantial in evidence, there needs to be some work done. Although the citations work, they are limited, and redundant. The citations also seem heavily web-based, making them less likely to be peer-reviewed, which might affect the credibility of the article. The section about preparation seems too close to the cited source, so this problem might exist elsewhere as well. Cra2148643 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Claremaier (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Pn612 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Yunye2017 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sashimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706165853/http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F1234905-90DE-4071-9344-B6DA9CDC0070/0/IllnessCausingFishParasites.pdf to http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F1234905-90DE-4071-9344-B6DA9CDC0070/0/IllnessCausingFishParasites.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sashimi


text:
User:Fubar Obfusco

Dous a papa Shith in the voids? Is the Bera ka slick?

Professional interests
open source software - computer security (spam, viruses) - programming languages (Python, Lisp) - e-mail - voice over IP - Linux - Macintosh

Amateur & recreational interests
politics (libertarianism) - human sexuality - computer science - religion, mythology, occultism, and atheism - recreational drug use - beer - conspiracy theory - law - gardening - Internet culture - economics

Wikipedian views
I'm pro-wiki. The Wiki model of collaboration works very well. Attempts to restrict it -- for instance, to lock out anonymous contributors -- are misguided. Openness is how Wikipedia has become as successful as it is today, and there is no reason to throw away this openness now that Wikipedia is the #1 reference site in the world.

I'm neither inclusionist nor deletionist. I disapprove of the promulgation of substubs and vanity articles, but anything which can have an interesting article written about it should be in Wikipedia. Categorical statements such as "all schools are notable" or "all Pokémon are non-notable" are not very useful: inclusion should be on the basis of the potential for a high-quality article or group of articles.

I'm opposed to censorship. Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect all verifiable human knowledge. It can't afford to be censored to fit someone's expectations of what's appropriate for schoolchildren or any other audience.

 * Corollary: I oppose all censorship tagging schemes. There have been a number of proposals to tag Wikipedia articles or images so that people can filter out "offensive" ones. However, there's no way to do this without throwing away Wikipedia's neutrality principles. Wikipedia editors have roundly rejected even the most minimal tagging scheme, thus showing that censorship tagging is not the way Wikipedia should be run.

 * Corollary: Wikipedia does not blush. Articles about "offensive" topics such as sexual acts, violence, or fringe beliefs should be unblushing. They should provide the detail that is necessary to understand the subject. A "wink wink, nudge nudge" prurient attitude is unscholarly and more offensive than any topic itself.

The best response to most content disagreements is to cite sources. Most of the neutrality or accuracy conflicts I've seen here involve two or more people squabbling over a piece of text that has no cited sources at all. Since we're supposed to cite sources anyway, a productive response on the part of all sides to such a disagreement is to refer to, and cite, their sources. At minimum this allows the discussion to center around source criticism rather than epithets and personalities.

The neologism "POV" needs to go. This term has become an unfortunate piece of jargon -- a term derived from NPOV which has become nothing more than an accusatory epithet. There is nothing useful conveyed by it which is not conveyed by "bias" or "opinion" -- and it has become a piece of hateful talk that is all too frequently used to accuse or exclude.

title: User:Fubar Obfusco


text:
Tarfu

Tarfu or TARFU may refer to:

 * Tarfu Lake, a lake of Yukon, Canada
 * TARFU, an acronym for "Totally and Royally Fucked Up" or "Things Are Really Fucked Up"; see Military slang
 * Seaman Tarfu, a brother of cartoon character Private Snafu

title: Tarfu