text:
John Paul Jones (musician)

John Paul Jones (born John Baldwin; 3 January 1946), is an English musician, songwriter, and record producer who was the bassist and keyboardist for the rock band Led Zeppelin. Prior to forming the band with Jimmy Page in 1968, he was a session musician and arranger. After the death of drummer John Bonham in 1980, Led Zeppelin disbanded, and Jones developed a solo career. He has collaborated with musicians across a variety of genres, including the supergroup Them Crooked Vultures with Dave Grohl, Josh Homme, and Alain Johannes. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995 as a member of Led Zeppelin.

Early years
John Baldwin was born in Sidcup, Kent, on 3 January 1946. He started playing piano when he was six, learning from his father, Joe Baldwin, a pianist and arranger for big bands in the 1940s and 1950s, notably with Ambrose and his Orchestra. His mother was also in the music business which allowed the family to often perform together touring around England as a vaudeville comedy act. His influences ranged from the blues of Big Bill Broonzy, the jazz of Charles Mingus, to the classical piano of Sergei Rachmaninoff.

Because his parents often toured, Baldwin was sent to boarding school at a young age. He was a student at Christ's College, Blackheath, London where he studied music formally. At the age of 14, Baldwin became choirmaster and organist at a local church and during that year, he also bought his first bass guitar, a Dallas Tuxedo solid body electric followed by multiple basses which he part exchanged until he finally bought his 1962 Fender Jazz Bass which he used until 1976. The fluid playing of Chicago musician Phil Upchurch on his You Can't Sit Down LP, which includes a memorable bass solo, is cited by Jones as being his inspiration to take up the instrument.

Session work
Baldwin joined his first band, The Deltas, at the age of 15. He then played bass for jazz-rock London group, Jett Blacks, a collective that included guitarist John McLaughlin. His big break came in 1962, when he was hired by Jet Harris and Tony Meehan of the successful British group the Shadows for a two-year stint. Shortly before hiring Baldwin, Harris and Meehan had just had a number 1 hit with "Diamonds" (a track on which Jones' bandmate-to-be Jimmy Page had played). Baldwin's collaboration with the Shadows nearly prevented the future formation of Led Zeppelin, when the parties engaged in talks about the possibility of Baldwin replacing their bassist Brian Locking, who left the band in October 1963, but John Rostill was ultimately chosen to fill the position.

In 1964, on the recommendation of Meehan, Baldwin began studio session work with Decca Records. From then until 1968, he played on hundreds of recording sessions. He soon expanded his studio work by playing keyboards, arranging and undertaking general studio direction, resulting in his services coming under much demand. He worked with numerous artists including the Rolling Stones on Their Satanic Majesties Request (Jones' string arrangement is heard on "She's a Rainbow"); Herman's Hermits; Donovan (on "Sunshine Superman", "Hurdy Gurdy Man", and "Mellow Yellow"); Jeff Beck; Françoise Hardy; Cat Stevens; Rod Stewart; Shirley Bassey; Lulu; and numerous others. As well as recording sessions with Dusty Springfield, Jones also played bass for her Talk of the Town series of performances. His arranging and playing on Donovan's "Sunshine Superman" resulted in producer Mickie Most using his services as choice arranger for many of his own projects, with Tom Jones, Nico, Wayne Fontana, the Walker Brothers, and many others. In 1967, Most, as music supervisor, also tasked Jones with arranging the music for Herman's Hermits' theatrical film Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter, released in January 1968. Such was the extent of Jones' studio work – amounting to hundreds of sessions – that he said years later that "I can't remember three-quarters of the sessions I was on."

It was during his time as a session player that Baldwin adopted the stage name John Paul Jones. This name was suggested to him by a friend, Andrew Loog Oldham, who had seen a poster for the 1959 film John Paul Jones in France. He released his first solo recording as John Paul Jones, "Baja" (written by Lee Hazlewood and produced by Oldham) / "A Foggy Day in Vietnam", as a single on Pye Records in April 1964.

Jones has stated that, as a session musician, he was completing two or three sessions a day, working six or seven days a week. However, by 1968 he was feeling burned out by the heavy workload: "I was arranging 50 or 60 things a month and it was starting to kill me."

Formation
During his time as a session player, Jones often crossed paths with guitarist Jimmy Page, a fellow session veteran. In June 1966, Page joined The Yardbirds, and in 1967 Jones contributed to that band's Little Games album. The following winter, during the sessions for Donovan's The Hurdy Gurdy Man, Jones expressed to Page a desire to be part of any projects the guitarist might be planning. Later that year, The Yardbirds disbanded, leaving Page and bassist Chris Dreja to complete previously booked Yardbirds dates in Scandinavia. Before a new band could be assembled, Dreja left to take up photography. Jones, at the suggestion of his wife, asked Page about the vacant position, and the guitarist eagerly invited Jones to collaborate. Page later explained:

"I was working at the sessions for Donovan's Hurdy Gurdy Man, and John Paul Jones was looking after the musical arrangements. During a break, he asked me if I could use a bass player in the new group I was forming. He had a proper music training, and he had quite brilliant ideas. I jumped at the chance of getting him."

Vocalist Robert Plant and drummer John Bonham joined the two to form a quartet. Initially dubbed the "New Yardbirds" for the Scandinavian dates, the band soon became known as Led Zeppelin.

Contributions

Jones was responsible for the classic bass lines of the group, notably those in "Ramble On" and "The Lemon Song" (Led Zeppelin II), and shifting time signatures, such as those in "Black Dog" (Led Zeppelin IV). As half of Led Zeppelin's rhythm section with drummer John Bonham, Jones shared an appreciation for funk and soul rhythmic grooves which strengthened and enhanced their musical affinity. In an interview he gave to Global Bass magazine, Jones remarked on this common musical interest:

"Yeah, we were both huge Motown and Stax fans and general soul music fans, James Brown fans. Which is one of the reasons why I've always said that Zeppelin was one of the few bands to 'swing'. We actually had a groove in those days. People used to come to our shows and dance, which was great. To see all the women dancing, it was really brilliant. You didn't necessarily see that at a Black Sabbath show or whatever: So we were different in that way. We were a groovy band. We used all our black pop music influences as a key to the rock that went over the top."

After retiring his Fender Jazz Bass (which he had been using since his days with The Shadows in the early 1960s) from touring in 1975, Jones switched to using custom-designed Alembic basses for touring. However, he still preferred to use the Jazz Bass in the studio and in a 2010 interview mentioned that he still had that bass at the time. Jones' keyboard skills added an eclectic dimension that realised Led Zeppelin as more than just a hard rock band. Keyboard highlights include the delicate "The Rain Song" (Houses of the Holy) played on a Mellotron; the funky "Trampled Under Foot", played on a Clavinet (Physical Graffiti); and the eastern scales of "Kashmir", also played on a Mellotron (also on Physical Graffiti). In live performances, Jones' keyboard showpiece was "No Quarter", often lasting for up to half-an-hour and sometimes including snatches of "Amazing Grace", Joaquín Rodrigo's "Concierto de Aranjuez", which had inspired Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain, and variations of classical pieces by composers such as Rachmaninoff.

Jones' diverse contributions to the group extended to the use of other instruments including mandolin, recorder, and an unusual triple-necked acoustic instrument consisting of a six and a twelve string guitar. Jones often used bass pedals to supplement the band's sound while he was playing keyboards and mandolin. On the band's 1977 tour of the United States, Jones would sing lead vocals on "The Battle of Evermore," filling in for Sandy Denny, who had sung on the studio version.

Profile
While all members of Led Zeppelin had a reputation for off-stage excess (a label that has been claimed was exaggerated), Jones was widely seen as the quietest and most reserved member of the group. For his part, Jones has claimed that he had just as much fun on the road as his bandmates but was more discreet about it, stating "I did more drugs than I care to remember. I just did it quietly." Benoit Gautier, an employee of Atlantic Records in France, echoed this impression, stating that "The wisest guy in Led Zeppelin was John Paul Jones. Why? He never got caught in an embarrassing situation."

In an interview, Jones explained that fame with Led Zeppelin was not something that he ever became preoccupied with:

"Not really; I'd done it all before ... I would like to think that I wasn't too stupid either. I tried to stay out of the drift of the rock star's path, mainly because I needed my sanity and freedom on the road. So generally, I used to check out of the hotel, and then get out on the street. I'd go walking ... I'm not as recognizable as Plant and Page. Plus, I used to change my appearance all the time just to make sure I wasn't as recognizable ... Generally, I'm pretty quickly into the shadows ... I once read the Beatles did a whole tour of America and never left their hotel rooms. And I thought, 'I can't see the point of travelling around the world and not seeing anything.'"

Following exhausting tours and extended periods of time away from his family, by late 1973 Jones was beginning to show signs of disillusionment. He considered quitting Led Zeppelin to spend more time with his family, but was talked into returning by the band's manager, Peter Grant. He joked that he was interested in becoming the choirmaster of Winchester Cathedral, which was reported as fact in several sources. Jones later explained his reservations:

"I didn't want to harm the group, but I didn't want my family to fall apart either. We toured a huge amount in those early days. We were all very tired and under pressure and it just came to a head. When I first joined the band, I didn't think it would go on for that long, two or three years perhaps, and then I'd carry on with my career as a musician and doing movie music."

"Royal Orleans"
It is rumoured that the Led Zeppelin song "Royal Orleans", from their album Presence, is about an experience Jones once had on tour in the United States. The song is about a person who mistakenly takes a drag queen up to his hotel room, who then falls asleep with a joint of marijuana in hand, lighting the room on fire. "Royal Orleans" was the name of a hotel where the members of Led Zeppelin would stay when they visited New Orleans, because not as many people asked for autographs there. In an interview he gave to Mojo magazine in 2007, Jones clarified the reliability of this rumour, stating:

"The transvestites were actually friends of Richard Cole's; normal friendly people and we were all at some bar. That I mistook a transvestite for a girl is rubbish; that happened in another country to somebody else ... Anyway 'Stephanie' ended up in my room and we rolled a joint or two and I fell asleep and set fire to the hotel room, as you do, ha ha, and when I woke up it was full of firemen!"

Other work
Jones's involvement with Led Zeppelin did not put a halt to his session work. In 1969 he returned to the studio to play bass guitar on The Family Dogg's A Way of Life album. Jones was Madeline Bell's first choice to produce and arrange her 1974 album Comin' Atcha. He has also played bass on the opening track for the Roy Harper album HQ, which also featured guitarist David Gilmour. Other contributions include playing bass on Wings' Rockestra, Back to the Egg along with Zeppelin's drummer John Bonham.

1980–2000
Led Zeppelin dissolved in 1980 with the death of John Bonham. "At the time that John died, I had just moved to Devon to bring up my family", Jones said. "So, after the split, I was completely out of everything. And I must say I didn't miss it."

Jones subsequently collaborated with artists including Diamanda Galás, R.E.M., Jars of Clay, Heart, Ben E. King, Peter Gabriel, Foo Fighters, Lenny Kravitz, Cinderella, The Mission, La Fura dels Baus, The Harp Consort, Brian Eno, the Butthole Surfers, and Uncle Earl.

He appeared on sessions and videos for Paul McCartney and was involved in the soundtrack of the film Give My Regards to Broad Street. In 1985, Jones was asked by director Michael Winner to provide the soundtrack for the film Scream for Help, with Jimmy Page appearing on two tracks. Jones provides vocals for two of the songs. He recorded and toured with singer Diamanda Galás on her 1994 album, The Sporting Life (co-credited to John Paul Jones). In 1985, Jones joined Page and Plant for the Live Aid concert, with Phil Collins and Tony Thompson on drums. The former members again re-formed for the Atlantic Records 40th Anniversary concert on 14 May 1988. Page, Plant and Jones, with John Bonham's son Jason, closed the event. In 1992, Jones arranged the orchestration on the R.E.M. album Automatic for the People.

In 1995, the band Heart released a live acoustic album called The Road Home. It was produced by Jones, and featured him playing several instruments. Also in 1995, Andrew Lawrence-King's Harp Consort released a set of three Spanish language songs in 17th-century style of Jones's own composition, accompanied by baroque instruments including harps, chitarrone, guitars, lirone, viola da gamba and percussion (this 10-minute CD, titled Amores Pasados, was coupled with The Harp Consort's debut record, Luz y Norte).

2000–present
Zooma, his debut solo album, was released in September 1999 on Robert Fripp's DGM label and followed up in 2001 by The Thunderthief. Both albums were accompanied by tours, in which he played with Nick Beggs (Chapman Stick) and Terl Bryant (drums).

In 2004, he toured as part of the group Mutual Admiration Society, along with Glen Phillips (the front man for the band Toad the Wet Sprocket) and the members of the band Nickel Creek.

Jones plays on two tracks on Foo Fighters' album In Your Honor. He plays mandolin on "Another Round" and piano on "Miracle", both of which are on the acoustic disc. The band's frontman Dave Grohl (a big Led Zeppelin fan) has described Jones' guest appearance as the "second greatest thing to happen to me in my life".

He has also branched out as a record producer, having produced such albums as The Mission's album Children, The Datsuns' second album Outta Sight, Outta Mind (2004) and Uncle Earl's Waterloo, Tennessee album of Old-time music, released in March 2007 on Rounder Records.

In May 2007, he accompanied Robyn Hitchcock and Ruby Wright in performing the song "Gigolo Aunt" at a tribute for Pink Floyd founder Syd Barrett in London, which he did on mandolin.

He played at Bonnaroo 2007 in a collaboration with Ben Harper and The Roots' drummer Questlove as part of the festival's all-star Super-Jam, which is the festival's annual tradition of bringing together famous, world-class musicians to jam on stage for a few hours. Jones appeared and played mandolin with Gillian Welch during the festival during the song "Look at Miss Ohio" and a cover of the Johnny Cash song "Jackson". He also appeared during the set of Ben Harper & the Innocent Criminals where they played a cover of "Dazed and Confused". Jones then closed Gov't Mule's first set, playing part of "Moby Dick" and then "Livin Lovin Maid" on bass, then proceeded to play keyboards on the songs "Since I've Been Loving You" and "No Quarter". Jones also performed on mandolin with the all-female bluegrass group Uncle Earl, whose album he had produced in 2007.

Mandolin-slinging Jones jammed on Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" with Winnipeg's energetic Duhks at April 2007's MerleFest in North Carolina.

Jones played in the Led Zeppelin reunion show at London's O2 Arena on 10 December 2007 with the other remaining members of Led Zeppelin as part of a tribute to Ahmet Ertegun.

In 2008, Jones produced Nickel Creek singer-fiddler Sara Watkins' debut solo album. As previously mentioned, Jones toured with Watkins, Glen Phillips, and the rest of Nickel Creek in late 2004 in a collaboration entitled Mutual Admiration Society.

On 10 February 2008, Jones appeared with the Foo Fighters on the Grammy Awards conducting the orchestral part to the song "The Pretender". On 7 June 2008, Jones and Jimmy Page appeared with the Foo Fighters to close out the band's concert at Wembley Stadium. Jones performed with Sonic Youth and Takehisa Kosugi, providing the stage music for Merce Cunningham's Nearly 90, which ran 16–19 April 2009 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

In 2009–2010 he was part of a supergroup with Dave Grohl and Queens of the Stone Age frontman Josh Homme named Them Crooked Vultures. The trio played their first show together on 9 August 2009 at the Metro in Chicago, and their first album was released on 17 November 2009.

In February and March 2011 he appeared in the onstage band in Mark-Anthony Turnage's opera Anna Nicole, about the Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith, at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, in London. In August 2011, he appeared at Reading and Leeds Festivals to play alongside Seasick Steve. On 16 September 2012, Jones appeared at the Sunflower Jam charity concert at the Royal Albert Hall, London, performing alongside guitarist Brian May of Queen, drummer Ian Paice of Deep Purple, and vocalists Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden and Alice Cooper.

In November 2012, Jones toured the UK with the Norwegian avant-garde/improvisational band Supersilent. On 6 December 2012, Jones performed on bass, guitar and mandolin with Robyn Hitchcock as 'Biscotti' at Cecil Sharp House, London. On 30 April 2013, Jones appeared live on the BBC TV Show Later... with Jools Holland, playing bass for Seasick Steve on "Down on the Farm" from Seasick Steve's new album Hubcap Music. On 1 May 2013, Jones appeared with Seasick Steve at a concert at the Roundhouse in Camden, London. Introduced by Seasick Steve as a member "of the best rock band ever", Jones played bass, mandolin, and steel guitar, and provided vocals. On Saturday 29 June 2013, Jones played guitar whilst appearing with Rokia Traoré, who opened the Pyramid Stage that morning at Glastonbury 2013. He also supported Seasick Steve on the West Holt's stage at the same festival. During November 2013, Jones joined a seven-day tour of the Southeast US, playing mandolin with the Dave Rawlings Machine. The Atlanta show (21 November 2013) included a rendition Led Zeppelin's "Going to California." Jones also toured with the Dave Rawlings Machine in autumn 2014. On 5 and 6 September 2015, Jones, along with Queen drummer Roger Taylor, joined Foo Fighters on stage in Milton Keynes to perform a cover of Queen's "Under Pressure," with Taylor Hawkins and Dave Grohl singing. Stepping outside his normal genre, he composed three lute songs for the 2015 album Amores Pasados by John Potter, Anna Maria Friman, Ariel Abramovich and Jacob Herringman.

In 2019 Jones formed a new band called the "Sons of Chipotle" with the Finnish cellist, Anssi Karttunen. The group premiered with a duo of live concerts at the Pit Inn in Tokyo, Japan in September of that year. For the Tokyo shows they were joined by musicians Jim O'Rourke and Otomo Yoshihide The band's first scheduled U.S. date at the Big Ears Festival in Knoxville, Tennessee was cancelled in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Legacy
Jones is widely considered to be one of the most highly influential and important bassists, keyboard players and arrangers in the history of rock music. Many notable rock bassists have been influenced by Jones, including John Deacon of Queen, Tom Hamilton of Aerosmith, Geddy Lee of Rush, Steve Harris of Iron Maiden, Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, Gene Simmons of Kiss, and Krist Novoselic of Nirvana. Chris Dreja, the rhythm guitarist and bassist of The Yardbirds, has described him as "the best bass player in Europe". Music publications and magazines have ranked Jones among the best rock bassists of all time. He was named the best bassist on Creem Magazine's 1977 Reader Poll. In 2000, Guitar magazine ranked him third in the "Bassist of the Millennium" readers' poll. Rolling Stone magazine ranked him number 14 on its list of the "50 Greatest Bassists of All Time" in 2020.

In October 2010, Jones was awarded a "Gold Badge Award" by The British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors for his outstanding contribution to Britain's music and entertainment industry. On 10 November 2010, he was honoured with the "Outstanding Contribution Award" at the Marshall Classic Rock Roll of Honour Awards. In 2014, Jones ranked first on Paste magazine's list of "20 Most Underrated Bassists."

Personal life
Jones married Maureen Hegarty in 1967; they reside in West London. They have three daughters. According to The Sunday Times Rich List 2009, Jones's net worth was £40 million.

Studio albums

 * The Sporting Life (1994) with Diamanda Galás
 * Zooma (1999)
 * The Thunderthief (2001)

Soundtrack albums

 * Scream for Help (1985)

with various artists

 * No Introduction Necessary (1968)

with Led Zeppelin

 * Led Zeppelin (1969)
 * Led Zeppelin II (1969)
 * Led Zeppelin III (1970)
 * Led Zeppelin IV (1971)
 * Houses of the Holy (1973)
 * Physical Graffiti (1975)
 * Presence (1976)
 * In Through the Out Door (1979)
 * Coda (1982)

with Them Crooked Vultures

 * Them Crooked Vultures (2009)

with Donovan

 * Mellow Yellow (1966)

with Yardbirds

 * Little Games (1967)

with the Rolling Stones

 * Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967)

with Billy Nicholls

 * Would You Believe (1968)

with The Mission

 * Children (1988)

with R.E.M.

 * Automatic For The People (1992)

with Butthole Surfers

 * Independent Worm Saloon (1993)

with Heart

 * The Road Home (1995)

with Seasick Steve

 * You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks (2011)
 * Hubcap Music (2013)

Filmography

 * Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter (1968) – music arranger: songs
 * The Song Remains the Same (1976)
 * Give My Regards to Broad Street (1984)
 * Scream for Help (1984) – composer
 * The Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb (1993) – composer
 * Risk (1994) – composer
 * Celebration Day (2012)

title: John Paul Jones (musician)


text:
Talk:War on terror/Archive 1

Whoever edited this page in the first place forgot to mention that India also has provided assistance to USA. The have provided landing facilities and have held joint IndoUS military exercizes all in order to fight the war against terrorism. I was disappointed that the person did not know this. A word about Pakistan - While no doubt that pakistan has provided assisstance, it also remains the chief sponosor of terrorism in world. user: rahul

Someone edited this page (like al-Qaida) to add the assertion that Carter funded al-Qaida, and the link to Zmag. The Zmag article does not make that assertion, though it does discuss Carter funding of unjust regimes and drops the name of Osama bin Laden. If the assertion cannot be verified from a reliable source (Zmag is political advocacy and not news or scholarship) then it must be removed, since if false it constitutes libel. --FOo

 * Actually, what the unknown author's text states--that Carter funded Islamic fundamentalists, not that he funded al-qaida specifically--is precisely what the Z magazine article asserts (without supporting fact). A better link would be: http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html  But more importantly, I think that fact belongs in the article on the Soviet-Afghanistan war and maybe in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan article, but not in the main War on Terrorism article.  There's plenty of interesting facts about the invasion without digging back, analyzing facts for irony, or juxtaposing peace awards.  Text included below for reference.  DanKeshet

 * Following the attack on the Taliban, the Bush Administration began deploying troops to various countries with an Islamic militant presence, to train and equip local forces. Ironically, 2002 Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had earlier (1979) started an investment campaign of $US40 billion to develop, train and equip local Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan (ref below), so the present Administration is responding to the unfortunate pro-fundamentalist choice of the Carter Administration.

My two dictionaries define extradite as

"To deliver up by one government to another, as a fugitive from justice."

and

"hand over to the authorities of another country [syn: deliver, deport, surrender]"

An extradition request is exactly what it was. The fact that it had an ultimatum attached and the fact that it didn't follow normal procedures do not change that. Finally, Ed, your abuse of VANDALISM IN PROGRESS is absolutely shameful. Vandalism is not "something I disagree with." DanKeshet

 * You exaggerate. I wrote changes to US anti-Taliban articles: perhaps not really "vandalism" per se, but not really correct either., so my abuse of the VIP page was not quite "absolutely" shameful. I qualified my remarks with a perhaps not really and invited the very attention you just gave it. Lighten, up, dude. :-) --Ed Poor 17:41 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

 * I do exaggerate. But c'mon now.  If you want to have Recent edits Ed Poor disagrees with, then go ahead.  But that isn't what VANDALISM IN PROGRESS is for. DanKeshet

Asa, I really like your edits, but I disagree on the first paragraph (or two paragraphs). I think that the "framework" stuff should be part of the introduction, and therefore in the same first paragraph, not cordoned off into a seperate section. Also, what do you think of my idea for the formatting, where we have summaries of the various campaigns, with links to the longer articles? DanKeshet

 * Cheers - i like your work on this article too :)

 * I seperated your "framework" paragraph (nice work, by the way, makes a lot of good sense) into another because I thought the first one looked too long. Seems ok now thou. I like your new formatting - look much better than all those sub pages (I'm of the opinion that sub pages are no good for articles, they make no sense in a encyclopedic context, only a computing one). We should try to break all those sub pages off into their own articles linked from this page. I think we need to do more work on the heading sizes too - seems a bit random ATM. AW

 * Thanks! Re: the framework stuff, if you want to seperate it out into a seperate paragraph, that'd be cool with me.  I just don't want it underneath any headings. DanKeshet

''Since the Bush and bin Laden families are or were both involved in the Carlyle Group, this campaign is seen by some as in internal family feud within the Carlyle Group, with occasional, unfortunate collateral effects (such as death) on non-shareholders. However, while George Bush Sr allegedly remains an employee of the Carlyle Group, it seems that the bin Laden family has allegedly ceased to be an investor since October 2002, so there has been an internal family split in the group. (see NYT ref below)''

 * Removed this, similarly to the bit about Jimmy Carter. I have a few problems with this: 1) most of it isn't information, it's opinion or analysis.  (In what way were the bush and bin laden families involved in the Carlyle group?)  2) it doesn't seem like it's appropriately placed.  I think it would be better placed in the "opponents" section as the perception described is almost entirely a perception felt by opponents of the invasion, or perhaps in the "US invasion of Afghanistan" article.  DanKeshet

GABaker, your rebuttal contains interesting information, but could you provide some more context for it? I mean, did someone in particular make this rebuttal? Otherwise I don't know that it's particularly relevant, however true it might be.... Actually I think a more appropriate way to incorporate such information into the article would be to write it above, in the main section describing the War on Terrorism, outlining the logic of the campaign and what it hopes to achieve. Otherwise this is going to degenerate into point-counterpoint nonsense (if it hasn't already). Graft 23:54 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

 * I've boiled down arguments made by a number military observers and journalists in the "you can lower the level" point. The analogy is guerrilla warfare; most campaigns can be suppressed without outside support, as in Malaya in the 1950s.
 * Collateral damage-same thing. It's come mostly from absorbing a LOT of airpower press, such as the USAF Air Chronicles.

Yes, we could move the rebuttal up, or we could eliminate the section on protests, which was verging on NPOV. Of course, my NPOV is someone else's bias --GABaker

 * The points of view expressed in the section on opposition are espressed nowhere else. The point of view expressed in your rebuttal is allready represented in the main body of the article. Some minor points from it could be incorperated (particularly the point about reducing terrorism to a lower lever - however then you will have to reconcile that more moderate idea with the absolutist rhetoric that comes from your government's administration -and others- about "wiping terror from the face of the earth", "hunting down the evil doers" etc etc. ), but on the whole it is irelavant. However I have left it alone for now to avoid an edit war... Also, I removed the assertations about Iraq having terrorist connections. They have none. The resistence forces that some western powers are now supporting, however, may. AW

 * see below - re:Iraq Funding Terrorists.

 * I think we need to rewrite the "common criticisms" part to be a record and classification of criticisms that people have made, with references. I'll slowly start working on this, but I hope others chip in. DanKeshet

 * Good idea. I like your new additions to the opposition section: gives it more context. I think we should remove GABaker's "rebuttal" - this is an encyclopedia page, not a forum! I will work on intergrating some of the points in it to the main text. AW
 * Perhaps I should not have used the word "rebuttal", but I am very certain I've absorbed the points of view of the WOT officials. I won't have a crack at integrating the points into the article the next two days, but I'll have time to do it at leisure Monday.
 * I am concerned that the WOT article is leaning too closely to a War on Iraq article, and losing its focus. Though the events are related, they aren't simultaneous.--GABaker

--

re: Iraq funding terrorists.

This has also been mentioned on 60 minutes (where they even showed a document with Saddam's signature), and widely reported in a large number of magazines and newspapers. THis is just the first link that showed up on a serach at MSN..

Proof That Saddam Bankrolls Terrorism

 * This article is something of a joke. It reads like an Israeli press release (and consequenseally, so do your latest additions). It has a clear anti-Palestinian bias, and the author obviously has an adgenda of his own, being an ex-Congressional aide and ex-Senatorial candidate. Exhorbitant claims are made of "some 350 pages of Iraq-related documents in both English and Arabic", yet not a single one is made availible. The article itself even admits that this and the 60 minutes programme you mention are about the only media to cover this "story", clearly because it is so far-fetched. The fact that the Israeli government under Sharon has been known to forge documents in an attempt find excuses for more illegal occupations of Palestinian territory is probably also a factor. You are going to have to provide a more scholarly, less obviouly biased source before you can include such assertations as if they were fact. AW

 * You're hardly being NPOV. The documuments *HAVE* been made available to the media. Various news organizations have examined them. 60 Minutes, if they're biased, are definitely not biased in favor of war or the Bush administrations efforts to disarm Iraq. These documents should be mentioned, even if a note is included saying that some are sceptical. Not including them and jumping to the conclusion that they are fake is picking sides, which Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. I've also seen these documents mentioned in articles from the major news organizations. In addition, you're ignoring the fact that Israel captured a terrorist cell that was trained in Iraq.. this has been widely reported on all of the major news networks. Here's a few links on the rewards for suicide bombers, etc..

 * " ALF also is doling out generous bounties for the dead and injured in the 20-month intifada. Payments are on a strict scale: $500 for a wound, $950 for disablement, $9,500 for death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber."
 * Washington Times

 * "In the spring, the Iraqi leader increased money for the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory -- not greed." ::
 * Fox News

 * "Saddam's regime, as Jordan intelligence officials report, shelters such aging Palestinian terrorists as Abu Nidal, a former deadly foe of Yasser Arafat, who is ill; and Mahmoud Abbas, hijacker of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro, in 1985, and a leader of the Iraqi-backed Arab Liberation Front (ALF)."
 * ABC News
 * TheAge

216, could you please refrain from flagging large edits as "minor edits"? It's misleading, and some people who choose to hide minor edits will miss these changes. In general a minor edit should only be something that does not affect the meaning of a passage (i.e., spelling mistakes, wiki links, missing or duplicated articles, etc.) If you are adding information to an article, or changing the flow of information in an article, it is not a minor edit. Graft

 * I thought a minor edit included anything up to a short sentence or two.. sorry.

I wonder about the danger of North Korea vs. Iraq. From what I read it seems North Korea is pretty close to being able to build nukes in at least small quantities and has missle power sufficient to deliver them on Japan. This sounds pretty bad to me.
 * And far as craziness/general instability goes, they're probably a few octaves higher than Saddam could hope to be. I mean, the mere fact that they're pursuing a nuclear weapons program while their country is gripped by famine implies insanity (although one might make the same argument for Saddam, even if the scale is somewhat different). Kind of makes you suspect that something else might be at work here vis-a-vis Iraq.
 * But, all of that aside, the article text is about the administration's position, and that is true, as far as I can tell, even if it seems irrational as stated. Graft
 * I think the bit about North Korea (as well as the bit about Iran) are tremendously inaccurate and poorly focused. The GW Bush administration has had a markedly different policy toward the Korean peninsula than the previous administration did, with very real and important consequences.  Why is the only paragraph on Korea then not actually on Korea, but rather on Iraq? DanKeshet
 * I read today in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ("Preemptive Posturing", BAS Sept/Oct 2002) that under Clinton the US conducted exercises to simulate nuclear bombing runs on Korea (North). This suggests that the Bush Nuclear Posture Review is not a complete departure from previous doctrine. Graft
 * Let's take this to George W. Bush administration policy toward North Korea. DanKeshet

Hi Kwertii, Who has an arrest warrant out for Kissinger? As far as I know he's only wanted for questioning so far. Graft

 * Good edit brining the Kissinger and Poindexter appointments into focus. I don't think either man is the bogeyman--especially Kissinger--but their appointments are very controversial. GABaker

 * Henry Kissinger, appointed lead investigator on a commission to investigate the September 11 attack, has international arrest warrants issued for him and is wanted by France, Spain, Chile, and Argentina for questioning in connection with possible war crimes he allegedly had knowledge of and facilitated while serving as Secretary of State during the Nixon and Ford administrations.

Yeah, besides our articles should avoid the passive voice. Don't say that someone "has warrants...issued for him". Say that X issued a warrant. The text above is almost as bad as saying "has been criticized for blah, blah, blah". Always attribute. --Ed Poor

 * Question: Specifically which war crimes? Or would they be crimes against humanity alleged against Kissinger?  There is a difference. --GABaker

 * I think that an elaboration of the details of the charges against Kissinger belong in the article on Kissinger, which is linked to from this article. I don't see any need to duplicate all the details of Kissinger's actions in two articles, when it is only peripheral to the focus of this article. soulpatch

Regarding "George Bush's personal war"; this is a widespread perception among both mainstream and alternative sources. In 1 minute of google searching, for example, I come up with this Time Magazine article which calls it 'George W. Bush's war on terror', this Phillipine Daily News article which calls it 'US President George W. Bush's global campaign against terrorism', and an Independent (UK) article calling it "President George Bush's campaign against rogue states". Every night as I go to bed, I hear the BBC using the phrase "George Bush's War on Terror".

Also, I do not believe this is a "slam". While some people who oppose the war and oppose Bush try to link the two for negative effect, I think many people who do not opppose the war simply identify it strongly with President Bush. DanKeshet

However, there has been speculation about the administrations plans, and Iran is seen by some as 'next on the list' -- both because of its "axis of evil" status and its geopolitical relationship with Iraq.

This is just a quick addition to -- hopefully -- help develop the section on Iran. -- Sam

"accepted international rules for combatants"? how exactly do they not meet these lofty standards? Regardless, I think a sentence like that reads far to much like Whitehouse PA spin. AW

 * Either way, it kind of makes sense following the words "The US government justifies this by...." Do we want to know how the White house justifies it or do we not want to know how the White house justifies it?

 * Considering I've READ the Geneva conventions a couple of times, I'll explain it like this (and it should be a section by itself in the WOT article):

 * Al-Queda is not a nation-state, and Al-Queda soldiers are not members of a regular armed force nor of a militia. They wear no identifying marks on their clothing nor uniforms.
 * Al-Queda may be engaged in a guerrilla campaign, but their campaign is carried out in third countries (by definition). This fails to meet the "internal conflict" standards of the Geneva convention of 1949 and its amendments.

Because they are neither soldiers nor guerrillas, Al-Queda members who are not captured do not fall under the protections of the conventions. They are "illegal combatants." Another category of fighters who have no protection under the Geneva conventions are mercenary soldiers (this was done in the 1970s on the behest of African states). A third category that does not fall under the conventions are spies and intelligence operatives.

Because of these rules, the U.S. may detain al-Queda operatives. Please note that this does not mean "should."

On the other hand, the Gitmo detainees have access to religious services (one of the few U.S.Navy Muslim chaplains is detailed to the Naval Station for Camp X-ray), sanitation, and the Navy is building relatively permanent, if not luxurious structures. They get rations comparable to U.S. Naval rations, with restrictions to meet a Muslim diet. The U.S. is following the details of the Conventions in terms of treating people. The Conventions do not mandate comfort, just toleratble standards.

The question is--is their status correct? Should the Gitmo detainees be called guerrillas, they may be detained until the conflict reaches a formal end. If they are civilians facing criminal charges, they may require access to counsel. (note the may: they aren't in the U.S., and the Geneva conventions have rules for military tribunals against civilians who break the laws of war.)

I hope this clarifies this. However, please, please, please do not merely cut out my words with the comment "blah blah blah." That was unnecessarily rude. -- GABaker

 * This is interesting stuff that you added, GABaker. I agree that it should be split off; I suggest Camp X-ray.  I think there are a few other questions that were not addressed in what you wrote, but I'm real busy now and I'd rather have that discussion at talk:Camp X-ray. DanKeshet

 * The change you made to that section is fine. Plus the new material looks extensive! I've added a little bit to the old part of the new page. I haven't read the new material yet, so perhaps it answers this question but: surely your argument about the technical definition of a regular army applies only to the al-Q'aeda fighters and not the former Taliban forces held at the camp?

 * p.s. the "blah combatants blah" comment was not meant to be rude towards yourself or your work, I was just lazy to explain the whole issue because it had gone back and forth so much. Sorry I can across that way. AW

Re: torture
The following needs to be set out: (Whether or not this should all appear in this article. -- Sam
 * the evidence/reports that indicate torture has taken place;
 * the criterea used to establish this;
 * any denials, official or otherwise;
 * other criterea that may be used to confirm or deny the allegation.

Quote from the Washington Post article: Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light, the prisoners are denied access to lawyers or organizations, such as the Red Cross, that could independently assess their treatment. Even their names are secret. The para that was placed in this article by Soulpatch clearly states that the US is directly involved in torture. This point needs to be made very clear in the paragraph or it will be removed. And per NPOV you can't make an affirmative statement of a piece of information if that information is in reasonable dispute. --mav

i believe ive npovd itVera Cruz

It seems NPOV to me as it is now phrased. There is no "reasonable dispute" that I see to what was posted, which quotes from an investigative report and which cites sources from the US government concerning its activities. Just because we don't like to hear an unpleasant revelation, that in and of itself coesn't constitute "reasonable dispute". soulpatch

I believe the government denies that it's torturing people. It seems to have it's own doublespeak language and thus it's own definitions... Vera Cruz

Nowhere in the Post article does it say that the US is directly involved in "torture". It does say that "stress and duress" techniques are used and that the US sends people to countries where torture is performed. Nowhere does it say that the US id directly involved in torture. --mav

Those so-called "stress and duress" techniques do constitute a form of torture. What the article says is that the US sends these prisoners to other countries for the use of more severe torture techniques. Either way, the US is clearly culpable in acts of torture, according to what the article describes. soulpatch

 * But you still can't say that the article says that the US is directly involved in torture because the article doesn't say that. We do have quotes from the post article so the reader can decide. This whole section IMO needs to be moved to the detainee article since it is about treatment to them. --mav

 * But the article says that the US is involved in activities which any person would reasonably characterize as torture. Whether the article uses that term isn't really the point, as I see it.  (your having moved the text around as you just did, by the way, seems fine to me, for what it's worth). soulpatch

 * "any person would reasonably characterize as torture" Hm. This very point is under a great deal of question both inside and outside the US. Therefore you can't make such an assertion. We have a description of what the US is doing under a heading the has the word "torture" in it. Let the reader decide for themselves. --mav

 * Under question by whom? Human rights experts, or the apologists for those who commit those acts of torture?  Obviously, for the US to admit it is torturing people would make it look bad, but so what?  The Soviet Union routinely refused to admit it was doing bad things for the same reason.  Just because those who do bad deeds refuse to own up to it, that doesn't mean we should be complicit in this encyclopedia by covering it up.  I think that Wikipedia should not fall into the trap of refusing to characterize anything with an appropriate label under the guise of "letting the reader decide".  Just because something is controversial, that doesn't mean it isn't true.  We shouldn't be in the business of whitewashing atrocities lest we offend someone.

 * That being said, I don't have a problem with the way the article is currently configured.  soulpatch

 * But, we have to be fair to all parties involved. For example, if John Doe was accused of being a murderer by the washington post - even though the post calims that there is no direct evidence to prove it, do we say that John Doe is a murderer because the only person denying it is John Doe himself? John Doe refusing to "own up to it" has nothing to do with it. It isn't proven, or at the very least, it is debatable. If the Post article that you're quoting says the following: "Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light", then we can't confirm that prisoners have been mistreated. We don't have to cover up the accusations, but we certainly don't have to pretend that they've been confirmed either. -Jazz77

 * But we aren't talking about John Doe; we are talking about a government, a very powerful one that has an official policy of secrecy in such matters. Investigative reporting is the best tool we have, given a secretive government, for determining what happened. And to say that we "can't confirm" isn't exactly true--we have participants intimately involved in the process who say that it has happened, and these people are in a official capacity and who have stated to the press that they happen.  The fact is that various government officials have admitted to the press that these various actions have occured (beatings, depriving them of painkillers, putting them in cramped quarters, etc.). soulpatch

 * But this isn't the word of the accusers vs. the word of the US government. It's the word of the accusers vs. the evidence itself. According to the article you are linking, there is no evidence that anyone has been mistreated. That's very important. We should be fair - even when we're dealing with governments. -Jazz77

 * But being fair to the United States government isn't popular in the world these days. -- Zoe

 * Actually, the US Government is accusing itself. This isn't a case of the victims or their families going around making accusations of torture by the US government.  This is a case of members of the US government (its officials, that is to say, those who are actually involved in the activities) admitting these acts to the press, and then saying that it is okay because Americans will support such acts.  Why do you think judges constantly want to supoena reporters to testify about their sources and to give up their notes, and why are their shield laws designed to prevent that sort of thing from happening?  The fact is that reporters conversations with people in the know, people who were there, who know what is going on, and who report what is going on even when it isn't necessarily in their interests to do so, is pretty vital.  We have eyewitnesses who have said that Americans "may kick them around a bit", that they saw cases where "U.S. Army Special Forces troops who beat them up and confine them in tiny rooms."   In lieu of anything to the contrary, this is powerful stuff.  We don't have to be "fair" to governments that commit human rights violations and then shroud their activities in secrecy.  We need to report the information we have. soulpatch

 * Which is that some people have made accusations, the post has investigated, made some additional accusations and said "Although no direct evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in U.S. custody has come to light". That's exactly what should be reported. We shouldn't come to the conclusion that anyone is correct - without evidence to back it up. -Jazz77

 * Re: "some people have made accusations, the post has investigated, made some additional accusations". This is not exactly true.  The Post investigated and found that the very elements who were being accused admitted to commiting such acts.  This is quite different from the sort of dismissive characterization that you gave it.  The investigation found that officials in the US government admitted that the accusations made were true, but their response was to say "So what?"--that is, to justify them as a necessary part of the war on terror.  soulpatch

 * There IS evidence, namely eyewitness testimony. soulpatch

 * There may be eyewitness testimony - but theres nothing to back it up. -Jazz77

 * Nothing to contradict it, either, and the eyewitness testimony has credibility. soulpatch

 * The absense of physical evidence contradicts it, or at the very least, creates some doubt. The eyewitness testimony would be extremely important *if* there was physical evidence of prisoners being mistreated while in U.S. custody, but there isn't. That's the problem. It's a "he said, she said" situation, and, as the article you linked states, there is no direct evidence that the US has mistreated anybody. If you took your neighbor to court claiming that they damaged your car, your eye witness testimony would be meaningless if you couldn't even prove that your car was damaged. -Jazz77

I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time discussing this, but that is a really, really bad analogy. I would point out that eyewitness testimony is, in fact, used all the time in courts of law, but that is neither here nor there in this situation. This is a point that you seem to be missing, but is that this NOT a he-said, she-said situation whatsoever. Your analogy simply bears no relationship to this situation. This is not the word of the torturers versus the tortured. On the contrary, the torturers are agreeing that the torture is taking place. The people who are saying that these atrocities are occuring are coming from the side that is commiting them. This is not a case of adversarial eyewitness testimony whatsoever; the people who are commiting these actions are reporting them, and doing so quite approvingly. As for the "absense of physical evidence" having any significance, that might make sense if someone outside of the US government has actually been able to have access to the prisoners. You claim that it "creates doubt", when in fact if anything the shroud of secrecy by the US government that is suspicious. To claim that there is an "absence" of physical evidence is misleading and disingenuous; the prisoners have been holed up and are inaccessible. What we do have is the admissions of the torturers and their allies themselves (and guess what--no one tortured them to produce those admissions!) (I really doubt that you are always so skeptical about everything that is ever reported by eyewitnesses, quite frankly). If you wish to maintain a level of "doubt" into this article out of adherence to the Holy Grail of NPOV, I think there is a sufficient level of that cautiousness already in the article, unnecessary in this case though it may be. I recognize that even the genocide articles in this encyclopedia often hedge in historical incidents of genocide that are quite obviously true, calling such things merely "charges of genocide". Sometimes this encylopedia refuses to call a spade a spade, and that is unfortunate, because it also can lead to whitewashing history. And, unfortunately, it really comes into play whenever anything involving the United States is involved, because apparentlyl the United States must always be portrayed as lily white and pure and incapable of doing wrong, even when the facts say otherwise. soulpatch

 * First, *of course* eyewitness accounts are used in court, but usually only with other evidence. They're essentially worthless without additional supporting evidence, or at least, evidence of a crime. The article you're quoting says there isn't any. Even if it's the person that claims to have committed the offence - if there's no evidence to support it, it doesn't mean a whole lot. People that confess to crimes that don't appear to exist are not normally convicted of a crime. In this case, it could be that that person is just all "talk". Coming from a military family, I can attest to the fact that many military people like to "talk tough". For example, "we may kick them around a bit".

 * Second, the government, as a whole, isn't admitting to anything. It's a few unnamed "sources." It shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be treated as proof of anything. The "sources" could easily be made up (reporters do that all the time), misquoted (also happens a lot), or as I said above, just "talking tough". Who knows? Without additional evidence, we can't know.

 * Third, there *have* been groups outside the U.S. government that have had access to the prisoners. For example, the Red Cross met with prisoners in private last January. The U.S. has been working with the Red Cross since the beginning to put an end to all of their concerns. England also sent people to look it over around the same time. Others have also visited.

 * The prisoners receive warm showers, toiletries, water, fresh fruit, clean clothes, blankets, regular mail, medical treatment, culturally appropriate meals, prayer mats, and the right to practice their religion.. and, according to the article, there's no evidence that they've been mistreated. They're probably living better than they did in the cave we found them in. I can guarantee that they're living better than we would be if they had captured us. - Jazz77

 * With regards to your claims about the treatment of prisoners, allow me to correct some misinformation. You seem to have confused the issues and you are addressing a similar, but quite different, case.  The Washington Post investigation dealt with the treatment of prisoners at the CIA's secret and off-limits detention center at Bagram and other locations.  To set the record straight, and contrary to what you asserted, the Red Cross has not been allowed to that facility and has never been allowed to examine the prisoners there.  It is true that the Red Cross has been allowed access to prisoners at Guantanamo, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand, because we aren't talking about Guantanamo.  We are talking about the treatment of prisoners who are taken to a detention and interrogation facility that is off limits to everyone, including the Red Cross, so getting any direct evidence is not possible (just as it would generally not be possible to get direct evidence from, say, a Latin American political prisoner's secret detention and interrogation facility).  But it IS possible to collect eyewitness accounts.  The Washington Post investigation, I will point out, involved interviews with "several former intelligence officials and 10 current U.S. national security officials -- including several people who said they had witnessed the handling of prisoners."   If you want to present some grand conspiracy theory that the Post made up all those sources (hey, maybe those two obscure reporters 30 years ago made up Deep Throat!), then be my guest.  Otherwise, though, let's at least get the facts straight.  soulpatch

 * You're right, somehow I had mistakenly thought that the charges were in connection to camp X-ray. Either way, most of what I said still stands. Eyewitness testimony is still not worth a whole lot without some kind of supporting evidence, which the post says doesn't exist. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that the Post had made up the sources - but it *has* happened before. It is quite common for news writers to put their opinion into an article by quoting unnamed sources that don't exist. Some news writers have even admitted to doing this on occasion. I seem to recall Dan Rather saying that he had even done it before. All that aside, even if these sources are correct, it's still impossible to say that prisoners have been tortured by the U.S. government without direct evidence to support the claim, which the Post doesn't have. -Jazz77

 * Well, aside from your sweeping generalization about the state of journalistic ethics, we obviously disagree on several points, but what we can do in the context of this encyclopedia article is what the article is currently doing, namely report what the investigative report has produced. soulpatch

 * Just don't fall into the fallacy that "if the Post said it is true then it is true." That is not NPOV. --mav

 * I agree, but it would also just as much a fallacy to assert that journalists have no ethics and anything they say is necessarily false. The Post is not infallible, but it IS credible.  There is a difference between a credible source and an infallible source, just as there is a difference between a fallible source and one that has no credibility.  Let us not confuse credibility with fallibility.  Then again, there are no truly infallible sources.  If we have a credible source of information, then it is worth citing here in this encyclopedia.  soulpatch

 * Speaking of "deep throat"... Jim Belushi said that after he read Bob Woodward's "Wired" (about the life of John Belushi) he immediately became a fan of Richard Nixon and doubted that "Deep Throat" actually existed. According to Jim Belushi, "Wired" is a complete and total fabrication. Made up events, made up people, etc. Luckily in the case of Watergate, we have more evidence to back up the reporters claims. In this case that we're discussing, we don't. -Jazz77

 * Jim Belushi, the actor and comedian? Yeah, Jim Belushi is quite the source on political scandal, isn't he?  Thanks for citing him; that was very useful and helpful to this discussion.  If the writers of the Post investigation of CIA torture are making this up, it would be a major journalistic scandal, and not just par for the course in the day of the life of newspaper writers.  The Post is not the Enquirer.  But until we receive evidence that they are making it up, we have them available as a credible source of information, and it should be treated as such.  (Wired, by the way, was a book written by a journalist, not a newspaper investigation).  I repeat what I said before--we have a credible source.  Not infallible, but credible.  And that is how this article presents the information we have received from it.  If and when you have evidence that they made this all up, we have something to go on.  soulpatch

 * Uggh, good lord, you didn't get what I was saying? No.. I'm not quoting Jim Belushi as an expert on a political scandal. The point was this, Woodward, one of the same guys that broke the Watergate scandal, wrote a book that, according to Belushi, was a total fabrication. Belushi is an expert on his brother. The point is, reporters are not always perfect - many times they don't even *try* to be. Many times they throw opinion or questionable sources into "investigations" to make headlines or sell books. That's why outside evidence is important. It's up to the people making the accusations to come up with the evidence. And again, I'm not claiming anyone made anything up - I'm simply saying that there is no evidence to back up what they are saying. -Jazz77

 * Of course reporters are not always perfect. We are all in agreement on this.  We all agree that newspaper reports are falible sources of information.  The difference is whether you consider a serious investigation by a serious major newspaper to be a CREDIBLE source of information or not.  I happen to consider it a credible source; you apparently do not.  And on this subject we will not agree, and going around and around and reapeating the same points over again will not settle this question here. soulpatch

america is a democracy and the greatest country on the planet and the greatest supporter of peace and goodwill and human rights and the greatest ever and it would never ever throughout any of its history never ever torture anybody. Vera Cruz

 * Oh yeah, I forgot. Well then, never mind.  :)  soulpatch

- Overturning previous regulations which prevented the CIA from operating against US citizens, President Bush has granted the CIA broad authority to secretly assassinate U.S. citizens (in addition to anyone else) anywhere in the world if the CIA thinks that they are working for Al Qaida. The individuals in question need not be tried or convicted in any court of law, or even formally charged in order for them to be targeted for assassination. This needs a very good citation or it will be removed. --mav

It was in the news about a month ago. Vera Cruz

A simple search in news.google.com found dozens of articles on the subject. Here is just one, picked at random:  (The vast majority of this Wikipedia article makes all sorts of claims that lack any "good citations". It is not clear why this particular block of text, among all the bits of text in this article, was targeted for requiring a "good citation", since no explanation was given as to why anyone might have considered it to be in doubt.  Perhaps I should demand proof for every other claim that is made in this article and threaten to delete the text if it isn't presented.) soulpatch

Looking at the date I see that I was on vacation when it hit the news so I missed it. Any fact in any article that seems surprising to the viewer can be removed unilaterally unless it is backed-up by a citation and is relevant. Such is the WikiWay. Notice I didn't remove the text but simply asked for a citation. --mav

I think it was a mistake to move the torture section into the "opposition" section. In the same way that GABaker's "rebuttal" of the opposition was better placed in the main article, this is information about the War on Terrorism. (We could rename it "Interrogation techniques" if people so desired.) The "opposition" section should be about, well, the movement opposing the War on Terrorism. DanKeshet

 * But that is one of the reasons why people oppose the war. It is also a widely-held view by those who oppose the war. --mav

 * I agree that it should be mentioned as a reason why people oppose the War and that is why I have left a sentence there in the "opposition" portion. However, the interrogation techniques themselves are not a feature of the opposition; they are a (sometimes disputed) fact about the War itself.  In the opposition section, we mention that there were people who specifically opposed the use of cluster bombs.  Should we therefore not write about cluster bombs in the main article (or in the main body of the linked article, as the case may be)?  DanKeshet

I have moved the Yemen and Pankisi Gorge pages to non-subpage style pages and updated the links accordingly. We no longer support subpages (support meaning having automatic links to higher level pages etc.), and the slash-syntax is not particularly elegant. I'm not sure having all these separate "War on Terrorism" articles is such a good idea - we don't lose coherence by placing the yemen operations in "History of Yemen" or "Politics of Yemen", for example, both of which aren't particularly long. --Eloquence

 * I like the colon as a replacement for the slash, but I disagree with moving this stuff to "History of Yemen" and "Politics of Yemen". Instead, I think we should summarize and link War on Terrorism: Yemen from History of Yemen, in the same manner that we (do or should) summarize and link to the American Revolution or Civil Rights movement are linked to and described on the History of the United States page, and described in greater depth in articles on their own.  The information contained in War on Terrorism: Yemen is important in more contexts than solely the history of yemen; it is also important in studying the War itself, or in studying United States foreign policy. DanKeshet

 * Sometimes they refer to it as the Moron Terror in reference to the simplistic "good and evil, with us or against us, our victory not theirs" stance taken by such leaders as G. W. Bush and Anthony Blair. And, perhaps, in reference to concerns that these leaders simply lack the intelligence to comprehend the problems or resolve them without increasing the risk of attack.

Though I lack references, I have moved this information to "opposition" because this is a frequent criticism. DanKeshet

 * A growing peace movement in the US, UK and Canada oppose any pre-emptive attack on any nation even if it harbors so-called terrorists or poses a threat of spreading weapons of mass destruction. Recently (January, 2003) this view has spread to official circles in France and Germany, which pledged not to support any attack on Iraq until all possible approaches to peace have been fully exhausted.

I believe this more properly belongs on the War on Iraq page. France and Germany have not checked out from the War on Terrorism, so far as I know. DanKeshet

This title may be NPOV, as questions might be raised about the precise definition of "terrorism." The phrase "war on terror" is more questionable. But perhaps it is appropriate, because the title in and of itself expresses a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer

 * Yes the title is NPOV becasue that is what it is called by the great majority of English speakers. --mav

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

title: Talk:War on terror/Archive 1


text:
Repertory theatre

A repertory theatre, also called repertory, rep, true rep or stock, which are also called producing theatres, is a theatre in which a resident company presents works from a specified repertoire, usually in alternation or rotation.

United Kingdom
Annie Horniman founded the first modern repertory theatre in Manchester after withdrawing her support from the Abbey Theatre in Dublin. Horniman's Gaiety Theatre opened its first season in September 1908. The opening of the Gaiety was followed by the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow and the Liverpool Repertory Theatre. Previously, regional theatre relied on mostly London touring ensembles. During the time the theatre was being run by Annie Horniman, a wide variety of types of plays were produced. Horniman encouraged local writers who became known as the Manchester School of playwrights. They included Allan Monkhouse, Harold Brighouse—writer of Hobson's Choice—and Stanley Houghton, who wrote Hindle Wakes. Actors who performed at the Gaiety early in their careers included Sybil Thorndike and Basil Dean.

From the 1930s to the 1960s, two impresarios dominated the field of British rep, mostly in the North. They were Harry Hanson and his Court players, and Frank H. Fortescue's Famous Players, with the Arthur Brough Players in Folkestone in the South. When an actor joined one of their companies, it could mean "twice-nightly" shows, and a new play to learn every week. Actress Rosemary Harris has told of her 50 consecutive weeks of doing that at Bedford rep. However, this is no longer possible, owing to restrictions from British Equity, which came to mandate just eight shows a week, including perhaps two matinées.

The practice of repertory ("rep") is still seen in large cities. Actors now have the luxury of at least three weeks of rehearsal, however. Repertory can still be found in the UK in a variation of guises: in Sidmouth (12 plays), Wolverhampton (eight), and Burslem and Taunton (four each). The Sheringham Little Theatre produces an in-house repertory season each summer, running from June until September. Weekly repertory theatre is also produced by the Summer Theatre season at Frinton-on-Sea.

Canada
Organizations in Canada include North America's largest classical repertory theatre company, the Stratford Festival, founded in 1953 primarily to present productions of William Shakespeare's plays. Canada also hosts North America's second largest repertory theatre company, the Shaw Festival, founded in 1962, which presents plays written by or set during the lifetime of Bernard Shaw, or that follow Shaw's ideal of socially provocative theatre. However, Canadian repertory companies follow a model that differs somewhat from the years-long rotation repertory system found in Europe. In Canada, productions often stay on the repertory for one season, running in repertory with other productions in the same year. The actors are not employed full time long term, but instead work on contracts usually maximum 8 months long.

The Vagabond Repertory Theatre Company was formed in March 2009 by artistic directors Nathaniel Fried and Ryan LaPlante, and currently resides and performs in Kingston, Ontario. It shuttered in 2019. The old English-style repertory theatres such as Ottawa's CRT (Canadian Repertory Theatre) and Toronto's Crest Theatre no longer exist—although they did have a version of summer theatre in smaller holiday districts, such as the "Straw Hat" players of Gravenhurst and Port Carling at Ontario's vacation Muskoka Lakes area.

State-subsidized theatres on continental Europe have been suggested as the origin of the repertoire tradition. One of the earliest examples of this system is the Moscow Art Theatre circa 1898. An even earlier example are the theatres of Germany. See the Deutsches Theater, a privately owned German theatre founded in 1883 to produce plays in rep. While variations appeared before, the modern repertory system did not become popular until the twentieth century.

United States
In the United States, the repertory system has also found a base to compete with commercial theatre. Many summer stock theatre companies are repertory in nature. College students and young professionals making up much of the acting company are supported by guest stars or actors who are further along in their careers.

Repertory theatre with mostly changing casts and longer-running plays, perhaps better classed as "provincial" or "non-profit" theatre, has made a big comeback in cities such as Little Rock, AR, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Chicago, Los Angeles, Nashville, New York, Houston, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Buffalo, Kansas City, and Seattle. Festival theatre now provides actors with work in the summer. There are many ways to rehearse repertory theatre. The most prolific American repertory theatres are an example of that. Utah Shakespeare Festival rehearses two plays a day split between an eight hour period. This is common. Some theatres only rehearse one play a day and add shows into rotation as the season progresses, like The American Shakespeare Center. They rehearse one play for a little over two weeks before it opens; then, they begin the next one. The length of rehearsal also varies. American Players Theatre has a six-week-long rehearsal period compared to Oregon Shakespeare Festival's eleven-week-long one.

America's oldest resident repertory theatre, Hedgerow Theatre, is located in Rose Valley, Pennsylvania. It was founded by actor Jasper Deeter in 1923. The present producing artistic director is actress and director Penelope Reed. Other notable repertory theatres include the Guthrie Theater, which was set up as a regional repertory theatre concept that is free from commercial constraints in the choice of repertoire. It is aligned in objectives to the repertory and resident theatre movement that emerged in the United States in the 1960s. This sought to establish an alternative and decentralized theatre network outside of New York, one which would have non-profit-making status and would be focused on the art of the theatre as well as the development of artists, craftsmen, and administrators. Publicly funded theatres that belong to this type have been receiving erratic support since the 1980s.

The Association of Producing Artists (APA) was one of the most successful repertory theatres in the United States, touring for four years and holding residencies in several cities before finally joining the Phoenix Theatre in New York City, where it was known for staging plays with modest prices. Currently, the American Repertory Theatre is considered one of the most distinguished repertory theatres in the United States. Since its foundation in 1979, it has earned several awards including a Pulitzer Prize (1982), a Tony Award (1986), and a Jujamcyn Award (1985).

Eastern Europe
In Russia and much of Eastern Europe, repertory theatre is based on the idea that each company maintains a number of productions that are performed on a rotating basis. Each production's life span is determined by its success with the audience. However, many productions remain in repertory for years as this approach presents each piece a few times in a given season, not enough to exhaust the potential audience pool. After the fall of the Soviet regime and the substantial diminution of government subsidy, the repertory practice has required re-examination. Moscow Art Theatre and Lev Dodin's Maly Drama Theatre of St. Petersburg are the world's most notable practitioners of this approach.

Rotation Repertory system is still the most commonly used business model of live theatre in Eastern and Central Europe, specifically in countries such as Austria, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Czech Republic.

In Germany, Schaubuhne and some other theatres run on a repertory system.

Weekly rep
A combination company was a touring theater company which performed only one play. Unlike repertory companies, which performed multiple plays in rotation, combination companies used more elaborate and specialised scenery in their productions.

A similar term, "weekly rep," denotes a British movement started in the early 1900s that focused on shorter runs of a single new work, rather than having several plays ready to perform at any given time.

For weekly rep and for a typical three-act play, the actors' week would start on Tuesday, and go as follows:

 * Tuesday: notes on previous night's opening of the current play from the director, then a sit-down read-through of the next week's play with some discussion by the director, on-the-feet blocking of the moves for Act I, with a few questions from the actors, followed by the second performance of the current play (which would also occupy every evening up to and including Saturday).

 * Wednesday: run Act I of next week's play and start to block Act II, but break early because there would be a matinée of the current play.

 * Thursday: finish blocking Act II of next week's play, run Act II and block Act III.

 * Friday: run Act III, run through the entire play with no scripts in hand, and technicals – meaning lights and sound – to watch, and write down cues.

 * Saturday: run through again, stop and go to test lighting and sound cues; costumes may be used if ready. Two shows today, including a matinée; the evening show closes the current play. After the last show, the set would be struck (taken down) by the crew - usually apprentices – and the stage manager.

 * Sunday: for actors, an opportunity to brush up on lines and moves, and for private rehearsals. However, for the crew it would mean putting up the new sets, hanging and focusing lights, and setting sound equipment.

 * Monday: in the morning, a run-through, usually without costumes (to save wear and tear), mainly for the technicals. In the afternoon: a "Full Perfect" dress rehearsal, maybe with a few friends seated in front to gauge reaction, then copious notes. In the evening, 8 o'clock opening night, followed by notes from the director, visits with friends from the audience and maybe a party nearby. The process would start all over again on Tuesday.

Resident company
Today, repertory theatres employ a wide range of actors, who can play a variety of types.

Before the modern repertory system, acting ensembles were normally made up of the standard stock company and later the touring company. The stock company would usually consist of a leading man and lady, a character actor and actress, younger actors to play romantic roles, and the rest of the actors would be a variety of ages and body types. The acting ensemble was typically around twelve. This was most popular prior to the Restoration. Post Restoration and into the nineteenth century, stock companies remained, but they were joined and then replaced by traveling companies. These ensembles consisted of the stars and actors hired to play a very specific role as a single production toured around.

Examples of rep performers who went on to become well-known are John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Laurence Olivier, Rosemary Harris, Christopher Plummer, Harold Pinter, Peter O'Toole, Jeremy Brett, Geraldine McEwan, Vanessa Redgrave, Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, Michael Gambon, Imelda Staunton and Patrick Stewart. Dirk Bogarde wrote about his start at Amersham rep in 1939, and Michael Caine has recounted his time spent at Horsham rep in the early 1950s.

There are many noted Resident companies or repertory companies, such as the Artists Repertory Theatre.

title: Repertory theatre


text:
Tisza

The Tisza, Tysa or Tisa, is one of the major rivers of Central and Eastern Europe. It was once called "the most Hungarian river" because it used to flow entirely within the Kingdom of Hungary. Today, it crosses several national borders.

The Tisza begins near Rakhiv in Ukraine, at the confluence of the White Tisa and Black Tisa, which is at coordinates 48.07472°N, 24.24444°W (the former springs in the Chornohora mountains; the latter in the Gorgany range). From there, the Tisza flows west, roughly following Ukraine's borders with Romania and Hungary, then briefly as the border between Slovakia and Hungary, before entering into Hungary, and finally into Serbia. The Tisza enters Hungary at Tiszabecs, traversing the country from north to south. A few kilometers south of the Hungarian city of Szeged, it enters Serbia. Finally, it joins the Danube near the village of Stari Slankamen in Vojvodina, Serbia.

The Tisza drains an area of about 156,087 km2 and has a length of 966 km Its mean annual discharge is seasonally 792 m3/s to 1,050 m3/s. It contributes about 13% of the Danube's total runoff.

Attila the Hun is said to have been buried under a diverted section of the river Tisza.

Names
The river was known as the Tisia in antiquity; other ancient names for it included Pathissus (Πάθισσος in Ancient Greek and later Tissus (in Latin)), (Pliny, Naturalis historia, 4.25). It may be referred to as the Theiss in older English references, after the German name for the river, Theiß. It is known as the Tibisco in Italian, and in older French references (as for instance in relation to the naval battles on the Danube between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire in the 17th and 18th centuries) it is often referred to as the Tibisque.

Another theory is that it is derived from Proto-Balto-Slavic *teišus meaning still, quiet, silent to describe the river.

Modern names for the Tisza in the languages of the countries it flows through include:
 * Tisa, ;
 * Тиса, ;
 * Tisa, ;
 * Tisza, ;
 * Тиса / Tisa,.

Regulation
The length of the Tisza in Hungary used to be 1,419 km. It flowed through the Great Hungarian Plain, which is one of the largest flat areas in central Europe. Since plains can cause a river to flow very slowly, the Tisza used to follow a path with many curves and turns, which led to many large floods in the area.

After several small-scale attempts, István Széchenyi organised the "regulation of the Tisza" (a Tisza szabályozása) which started on August 27 1846, and substantially ended in 1880. The new length of the river in Hungary was reduced to 966 km in total, with 589 km of dead channels and 136 km of new riverbed.

Lake Tisza
In the 1970s, the building of the Tisza Dam at Kisköre started with the purpose of helping to control floods as well as storing water for drought seasons. However, the resulting Lake Tisza became one of the most popular tourist destinations in Hungary since it had similar features to Lake Balaton at drastically cheaper prices and was not crowded.

Navigation
The Tisza is navigable over much of its course. The river opened up for international navigation only recently; before, Hungary distinguished "national rivers" and "international rivers", indicating whether non-Hungarian vessels were allowed or not. After Hungary joined the European Union, this distinction was lifted and vessels were allowed on the Tisza.

Conditions of navigation differ with the circumstances: when the river is in flood, it is often unnavigable, just as it is at times of extreme drought.

Wildlife
The Tisza has a rich and varied wildlife. Over 200 species of birds reside in the bird reserve of Tiszafüred. The flood plains along the river boast large amounts of diverse plant and animal life. In particular, the yearly "flowering" of the Tisza is considered a local natural wonder. The flowering attracts vast numbers of mayflies which is a well known spectacle.

In September 2020, colonies of magnificent bryozoans were discovered in the river.

Pollution
In early 2000, there was a sequence of serious pollution incidents originating from accidental industrial discharges in Romania. The first, in January 2000, occurred when there was a release of sludge containing cyanide from a Romanian mine and killed 2000 tons of fish. The second, from a mine pond at Baia Borsa, northern Romania, resulted in the release of 20000 m3 of sludge containing zinc, lead and copper occurred in early March 2000. A week later, the third spill occurred at the same mining site at Baia Borsa, staining the river black, possibly including heavy metals.

This series of incidents were described at the time as the most serious environmental disaster to hit central Europe since the Chernobyl disaster. Usage of river water for any purpose was temporarily banned and the Hungarian government pressed the Romanians and the European Union to close all installations that could lead to further pollution.

Examination of river sediments indicates that pollution incidents from mines have occurred for over a century.

Drainage basin
The Tisza River is part of the Danube River catchment area. It is the tributary with the largest catchment area (~157,000 km2). It accounts for more than 19% of the Danube river basin. The Tisza water system is shared by five countries: Ukraine (8%), Slovakia (10%), Hungary (29%), Romania (46%) and Serbia (7%).

The Tisza River Basin area and average discharge (period from 1946–2006) by country The 1800–2500 m high ridge of the Carpathian Mountains create in a semi circle the northern, eastern and southeastern boundary of the Tisza catchment. The western - southwestern reach of the watershed is comparatively low in some places – on its Hungarian and Serbian parts it is almost flat. The area is divided roughly along the centreline by the Carpathians Mountains, east of which lies the 400–600 m high plateau of the Transylvanian Basin, and the plains to the west. The highest summits of the river basin reach 1948 m in the Low Tatras (Kráľova hoľa), 2061 m in the Chornogora Mountains (Hoverla), 2303 m in the Rodna Mountains (Pietrosul Rodnei) and even higher in the Retezat Mountains of the Southern Carpathians (Peleaga, 2509 m). Areas above elevations higher than 1600 m occupy only 1% of the total; 46% of the territory lies below 200 m. The Tisza River Basin in the Slovak Republic is predominantly hilly area and the highest mountain peak in Kráľova hoľa - in the Low Tatras Mountain Range at 1948 m. The lowland area lies in the south, forming the northern edge of the Hungarian Lowland. The lowest point in the Slovak Republic is the village of Streda nad Bodrogom in the eastern Slovak lowland (96 m) in the Bodrog River Basin. The Hungarian and Vojvodina (Serbia) part of the Tisza River Basin is a flat area bordered by small ranges of hills and mountains from the north and dominated by the Hungarian lowland.

Important hydrographic stations along the Tisza River (full list)
 * Period: 1971–2000

Discharge
Average, minimum and maximum discharge of the Tisza River at Tiszabecs (Upper Tisza), Szolnok (Middle Tisza) and Senta (Lower Tisza).

Tributaries
The following rivers are tributaries to the river Tisza:
 * Vișeu (entering at Valea Vișeului)
 * Kosivska (entering at Luh)
 * Shopurka (entering at Velykyi Bychkiv)
 * Iza (entering at Sighetu Marmației)
 * Sarasău
 * Bic
 * Săpânța
 * Șaroș
 * Teresva (entering near Teresva)
 * Baia
 * Valea lui Francisc
 * Tereblia (entering at Bushtyno)
 * Rika (entering near Khust)
 * Batar
 * Borzhava
 * Tur
 * Szamos (entering near Vásárosnamény)
 * Someșul Mare (in Dej)
 * Șieu (in Beclean)
 * Bistrița (near Bistrița)
 * Someșul Mic (in Dej)
 * Someșul Cald (in Gilău)
 * Someșul Rece (in Gilău)
 * Kraszna (entering in Vásárosnamény)
 * Bodrog (entering in Tokaj)
 * Ondava (near Cejkov)
 * Latorica (near Cejkov)
 * Laborec (near Oborín)
 * Uzh (near Pavlovce nad Uhom)
 * Cirocha (in Humenné)
 * Stara
 * Vicha
 * Kerepets
 * Sajó (entering near Tiszaújváros)
 * Hornád (near Kesznyéten)
 * Eger (entering in Poroszló)
 * Zagyva (entering in Szolnok)
 * Körös (entering near Csongrád)
 * Sebes-Körös (near Gyoma)
 * Berettyó (Barcău) (in Szeghalom)
 * White-Körös (near Gyula)
 * Black-Körös (near Gyula)
 * Maros (entering near Szeged)
 * Arieș (near Gura Arieșului)
 * Târnava (near Teiuș)
 * Târnava Mare (in Blaj)
 * Târnava Mică (in Blaj)
 * Aranca (entering near Padej)
 * Čik (entering near Bačko Petrovo Selo)
 * Jegrička (entering near Žabalj)
 * Bega (entering near Titel)

The main tributaries of the Tisza River:

Cities and towns
The Tisza (Tisa) flows through the following countries and cities (ordered from the source to mouth):
 * Rakhiv
 * Tiachiv
 * Khust
 * Vynohradiv
 * Malé Trakany
 * Veľké Trakany
 * Biel
 * Sighetu Marmației
 * Vásárosnamény
 * Záhony
 * Tokaj
 * Tiszalök
 * Tiszaújváros
 * Tiszafüred
 * Szolnok
 * Tiszakécske
 * Csongrád
 * Szentes
 * Szeged
 * Kanjiža
 * Novi Kneževac
 * Senta
 * Ada
 * Mol
 * Bačko Petrovo Selo
 * Bečej
 * Novi Bečej
 * Titel
 * Mol
 * Bačko Petrovo Selo
 * Bečej
 * Novi Bečej
 * Titel

title: Tisza


text:
User:Brandf

Brandon Faloona

not much to see here...

my homepage: http://faloona.net/brandon

my favorite activist search engine: http://activista.org

wikipedia rules!

title: User:Brandf


text:
Mimeo

Mimeo (possibly derived from the Greek word mimema for "something imitated") may refer to:

 * M.I.M.E.O. – an experimental music group
 * Mimeograph machine
 * Mimeo – an unpublished academic paper, formerly often distributed with the aid of mimeograph machines.
 * Mimeo, Inc - an online publishing company

title: Mimeo


text:
Talk:Wiki hosting service

Ad?
Is this an advertisement, or a useful Wikipedia-related link? I'm sufficiently uncertain that I'm asking before deleting. :) Bryan Derksen

Well, it seems to offer free resources. So Ad or no Ad, it's a useful definition and has useful, seemingly free examples. Can't see the problem. [unsigned]

Blatantly offtopic? What's a wikifarm, and why does it include wiki-policies in this page? Ojw 21:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For me this entry has been very useful, I have discovered this new concept thanks to this; I will of course oppose its deletion. --Khalid hassani 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't explain a wikifarm - poorly written (mid-way through, I don't yet see the point) and non-objective to boot. It advocates a certain way of wiki-ing - Ben Sommer

Although this article is somewhat crude, it contains helpful information that is not in other wiki articles. I support cleaning but not deletion.DataTime86 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs work, but i can't imagine why this article would be deleted. (aH)

I'm deleting everything that isn't related to wiki farms (kind of ironic that it has an off-topic paragraph on off-topic information in wikis) --대조 | Talk 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is wikifamily really notable? it looks like an ad in a way considering that it is not very good of a website and fairly new --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Page move
This article has been moved from Comparison of wiki farms to wiki farm. For the discussion page on wiki farms comparisons, see Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to retain all editing history, it would have been better to first move Wiki farm to a different name, redirect it back, then move Comparison of wiki farms. Currently, the article and talk pages don't match.
 * We could still do this, or does someone have a better suggestion? --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without reading this discussion, I moved the old edits at wiki farm to Talk:Wiki farm/Old history to retain the old page history. Maybe the talk pages could be switched, for example by moving this page to Talk:Wiki farm/Archive 1 and moving Talk:Comparison of wiki farms to Talk:Wiki farm. However the current setup isn't doing any harm. Graham 87 10:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The other talk page is about comparisons. This article is about the concept of wiki farms. This article isn't about the comparisons anymore. A moove isn't necessary. The talk page on comparisons belongs at the comparison article. This talk page here stays. I agree that the the current setup isn't doing any harm. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the useful history at the title "Talk:Wiki farm/Old history" back to wiki farm. There's no reason not to have it in the main namespace now, since the page history at comparison of wiki farms is back at that title. Graham 87 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the comparisons?
An article about Wiki farm does not need the tables comparing wiki farm web sites. This article should describe how wiki farms work and the various differences between wiki farm types, but I don't see any need to list and compare specific web sites. We could have material on web sites that are or were notable but tables of current implementations belong somewhere else. Changing the name puts a whole new frame on the article and the tables no longer belong here. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Would anyone oppose moving the comparison tables back to Comparison of wiki farms so that this article could focus on its new given topic? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. From the discussion at Comparison of wiki farms it looked like there was agreement to move the comparisons to wikiversity. The comparison tables are already there. We just need to link to them here. I thought Comparison of wiki farms was now gone from WP. It redirects here in any case. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we just moved the version with the not-notable wiki farms to Wikiversity, the current revirsion with just the notable ones validly remains on WP. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that the rest of the list should go as well. Wikipedia doesn't exist for product reviews.  SDY (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cybercobra, Comparison of wiki farms is gone from WP. There is no "current version." Comparison of wiki farms simply redirects to Wiki farms where it is inappropriate to have tables comparing specific wiki farms. This article should be about the idea of a Wiki farm, how one works, the varieties of approaches to them. Certainly we can have text describing wiki farms notable for historic reasons and we can and should link to the Wikiversity article but these comparison tables should be deleted. Jojalozzo (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Would Wikimedia's group of 100+ wikis be considered a wiki farm?
Tisane (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe so, but we should wait for a second opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

where would Wikkii fit in this?
Just wondering. 205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wiki hosting service. 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/20160131033544/http://www.wikimatrix.org/ to http://www.wikimatrix.org/

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 03:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging back
14 years ago Comparison of wiki hosting services was split out from this article; now that it's being put back in, what's the desired approach? Move the whole article over under this article with a section heading? Recon rabbit  21:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Done.
 * I think there are serious issues with the list though. It seems to be compiled using two sources:
 * wikimatrix.org, a personal homepage
 * Sankar (2009) who barely understands what he's writing about, calling any web app including spreadsheets and calendars a 'wiki'
 * This falls short of the usual standard. --PaulT2022 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's obviously an argument that editors can be trusted to compile the list from primary sources themselves, but then it just becomes a random collection of examples of Collaborative software with online editing and hyperlinks. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, I don't think that bundling wiki farms like Fandom and wiki software MediaWiki or Confluence into the same category and 'comparing' is done by any reliable source as these are entirely different entities. How would 'content license' apply to the latter, for example? What does 'Subdomain - No' mean in relation to Confluence?
 * WP:PSTS exists for a reason and it'd be preferable if a secondary source could be found for this section. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Several redirects listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirects [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EditThis.info&redirect=no EditThis.info], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ElWiki&redirect=no ElWiki] , [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Referata&redirect=no Referata] , and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki-site&redirect=no Wiki-site] have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on these redirects at  until a consensus is reached. PleaseStand (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The notability requirement introduces a serious bias in the list
Excluding wiki farms such as MyWikis or Miraheze because they are not notable to have their own articles makes this a biased and functionally dishonest list. I would propose therefore that the comparison table be removed from the article in favor of the one on MW.org. pcj (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not against the notability criteria as such, but I agree that the list in its current state is indeed a mishmash of random services that happen to include some form of wiki editing or hosting, which isn't a meaningful category. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wiki hosting service


text:
Haloragales

Haloragales is an order of flowering plants. In the Cronquist system of classification of 1981, it was placed in subclass Rosidae and had this circumscription:

 * order Haloragales
 * family Haloragaceae (this includes water milfoil)
 * family Gunneraceae

title: Haloragales


text:
Spanish euro coins

Spanish euro coins feature three different designs for each of the three series of coins. The minor series of 1, 2, and 5 cent coins were designed by Garcilaso Rollán, the middle series of 10, 20, and 50 cent coins by Begoña Castellanos, and the two major coins feature the portrait of King Felipe VI of Spain. All designs feature the 12 stars of the EU, the year of minting, and the word España (Spanish for Spain).

Current series
In 2010, Spain updated their national sides in order to comply with the European commission recommendations. In the €1 and €2 coins, the same portrait of king Juan Carlos I was used, but the year position was placed in the inner part of the coin. Moreover, the twelve star ring no longer contained chiselled sections. The chiselled sections were also removed from designs for the other coins.

In 2015, the portrait on the €1 and €2 coins was changed to that of the new King Felipe VI following his father's abdication the previous year.

First series (1999–2009)
For images of the common side and a detailed description of the coins, see euro coins.

Spanish UNESCO World Heritage Sites series
Spain started the commemorative coin series Patrimonio de la Humanidad de la UNESCO (UNESCO World Heritage) in 2010, commemorating all of Spain's UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which could continue until 2058. The order in which the coin for a specific site is issued coincides with the order in which they were declared a UNESCO World Heritage site. The coins issued are:

title: Spanish euro coins