text:
Talk:Paul Martin

Untitled

 * Talk:Paul Martin/Archive 1

Leader of the Opposition (Canada), just in case

 * Actually, it seems that Martin wants the Liberal Party to appoint an interim leader soon, so Martin may not become the Leader of the Opposition after the transition. Ground Zero | t 13:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on today's announcement, it would seem the Leader of the Opposition Infobox needs to be moved to Bill Graham's article, if it hasn't been already. (If it has been moved, it might as well be deleted from this talk page as unneeded). 23skidoo 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Martin PM until resignation
Paul Martin is still the Prime Minister. He remains PM until he resigns. The transition could take up to 2 weeks. --Ibagli 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe his phone call to the Gov-Gen was his resignation, however he remains PM until Harper is sworn in a couple weeks from now. It's not quite as long a process as it is when changing US Presidents which takes about 2 1/2 months. But Harper I believe needs to appoint his cabinet and set up a few other things before he's ready to take office officially. If something happens tomorrow that requires a PM-level involvement (natural disaster, etc.) Martin will still be the face of the government. 23skidoo 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted edits in Martin's biography box From Dec.12, 2003-February 6, 2006 back to Dec.12, 2003- present. Why?, because Martin could die, or resign immediatly as PM before the date (Feb 6), he's scheduled to leave office. So, why not wait until February 6th, 2006 before we put down Dec/12/03 - Feb/6/06. GoodDay 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Feb. 6 is a scheduled event, but anything could happen in the next week or so. 23skidoo 21:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it time to remove his title? He is no longer the Prime Minister now. Mamboman 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Current event tag
Now the election is over, is it still needed or should it be kept till Harper is sworn in? 23skidoo 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. J.R. 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Right Honourable
I'd like to note that Martin is entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable" until death, and does not lose it upon ceasing to be Prime Minister. --Saforrest 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, prime ministers have the title "Right Honourable" until passing. It should be noted that in 2004, during the seven days that marked the death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney was addressed by American commentators as "the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney" when he appeared with them. -- SNIyer12 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is because he remains a member of the Queen's Privy Council, even though he is no longer Prime Minister. Technically the PC appointment is not strictly related to the office - i.e. if Harper were made PM next week but were to die before he was inducted into the PC, he wouldn't be a Right Honourable. Geoff NoNick 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that although he remains Rt. Hon., I've removed it from the first line as per He Manual of Style (biographies) --JGGardiner 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council members are "The Honourable" NOT "The Right Honourable". "The Right Honourable" title comes with the office of Prime Minister and is lost after the office is lost. Martin is therefore only entitled to "The Honourable". --YapaTi (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? The Wikipedia article for Right_honourable disagrees.  As does the Library of Parliament.  See their page on Mulroney for example.  --JGGardiner (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Martin resigned as Leader and PM
Paul Martin resigned as Leader on Jan.23 2006 and PM as of Jan.24 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelm (talk • contribs)

 * Why is he listed as being PM until Jan. 24? Logically, he should be PM until Feb. 6, since that is when Harper's page lists Harper as taking over. What about those two weeks in between? I know he resigned, but I don't think his resignation takes effect until Feb. 6. JackO'Lantern 09:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * From the article linked to by Michaelm: "Martin advised her of his intention to resign as Prime Minister of Canada." He has not resigned as either PM or Liberal leader yet. He will resign the PMship on Feb. 6, just prior to Harper's swearing in. With the Liberal leadership, all Martin said was that he plans not to be leader during the next election, so it could many months before he actually is replaced. Indefatigable 15:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Martin's resignation as PM takes effect February 6th, 2006 (when Harper takes office) & he's still Liberal Party leader until a new leader is chosen (at a Liberal Leadership Convention). However, editors (mainley anon users) have continued to post the contrary & assumed Martin will still be alive by Feb. 6/06. I don't believe it's vandalism ,just mistakened edits. GoodDay 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Replying to Indefatigable) - that's the thing. Martin could quit as leader and an interim leader could be named until a convention, but so far this has not happened. So unless Martin chooses to quit outright after Feb. 6 he could, in theory, be leader for another couple of years. Realistically, though, the Liberals need to establish their new leader if they want to win a majority next time, so it's in their best interests to hold a convention before this year is out. (Especially given the short lifespans of minority governments.) 23skidoo 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The new CBC report seems to suggest ... I don't know what it suggests. It looks like Martin will remain leader of the Liberals ... but someone else will become Leader of the Opposition. That doesn't make sense. I thought one was the other. Maybe I read it wrong... 23skidoo 19:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Leader of a political party, doesn't have to be that party's leader in the House of Commons. The best case of this, is when a Party Leader isn't a MP (example NDP leader Jack Layton wasn't an MP 2003-04, and so had someone (not sure who), serve as HC leader for the NDP during that time). Although Paul Martin's case is rare (as he's still an MP), he can continue as Party Leader & yet have another person serve as the party's leader in the House of Commons. So ,yes Paul Martin will continue as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (until as new leader is chosen), however at his request, another Liberal MP will spearhead the Opposition (Liberals) in the House of Commons. GoodDay 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

caretaker
A caretaker prime minister in constitutional law is a resigned PM who is still in office purely because his or her successor has not yet been appointed. As Martin has not resigned, merely announced to resign, he is still a full prime minister, not a caretaker. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have never heard this term used with regards to a Canadian Prime Minister, only a British one. Is there a source to indicate that it is used in the Canadian context? I saw a newspaper report a few days ago that referred to Martin as a "lame duck prime minister" but I believe this to be an incorrect appliance of an American term... 23skidoo 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * "Lame Duck" isn't an official term, however. Some people and press (I have no opinion on the matter) in Alberta call Ralph Klein a lame duck.  It just means that they're ineffective because they're being replaced soon.Habsfannova 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Lame duck usually means a full office-holder who because they are coming to the end of their period in office carries little political authority and so cannot do anything much. Caretaker indicates a resigned office-holder in office simply because their successor has not yet entered it. A lame duck PM possesses full powers but not the political authority to use them. A caretaker PM possesses minimal powers (just enough to keep the process of government ticking over but an inability to exercise many powers, eg, major policy initiatives, seek a dissolution of parliament, etc) but the political authority to use those powers they still have if need be, though usually they will consult with the impending govermment in their exercise. Martin is a de facto lame duck PM but neither de jure nor de facto a caretaker PM. If he had resigned on 24th January, rather than announce his intention later to resign, he would be a caretaker. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That's true. However, in the Canadian context "caretaker" is not used quite so much because it has various meanings.  It is also frequently used to describe a PM who oversaw a period with little action; usually quiet times but also one who did not achieve much or leave much of a legacy.  What a Wikipedian might call a "POV term" if used in that sense.  Louis St. Laurent is probably a good example.  As we borrow terms from the US, the UK and elsewhere and adapt them in different ways but also use their original meanings, it can be quite complicated with some terms having various uses.  --JGGardiner 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * As an encyclopaedia we have to follow higher standards of accuracy in the use of terminology. Whatever about media usage, we have to follow strict constitutional accuracy. It is quite simple: A prime minister is prime minister until they resign, are dismissed or die. A caretaker prime minister is an interim prime minister between the resignation of one PM and the appointment of another. Sometimes the caretaker PM is the outgoing PM. Some constitutional system allow another figure, often a senior civil servant, to act as caretaker PM. As Martin has not resigned he is not, and cannot be, a caretaker PM. He is simply the Prime Minister. The only qualification is that politically he is a lame duck PM. If, God forbid, a massacre of new MPs was to take place and a new election had to be called before the 6th, Martin constitutionally could request a dissolution and a new election off the Governor General. If he was a caretaker PM he in the view of most constitutional experts could not. (Though in that circumstance the Governor General would probably then simply appoint him as full PM to enable him to seek a dissolution lest their be any constitutional doubt over his request if a caretaker PM.) FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that "lame duck" is awkward. As for "caretaker" I was trying to be polite above but if I can be blunt, it is rarely employed in that sense in Canada.  --JGGardiner 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Espres52-e.jpg

 * The Espres52-e.jpg image is just not appropriate for wiki. It contains the unverifiable claim that "no country has reduced debt as much as Canada" - this would require a link to an exhaustive study to substantiate. Palmerston 03:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It comes off looking rather POV as a result. 23skidoo 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Advanced Vandalism
Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes
The box for "Leader of the Liberal Party" had changed the successor box to "to be chosen" from "incumbent." Although it is unlikely to happen, there is precedent in Canadian politics for a leader to announce his resignation and then change his mind ... Pierre Trudeau. I think this should remain as "incumbent" until the convention chooses a new leader (or Martin stays on, one or the other). 23skidoo 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Finance Minister
This sentence in the first paragraph of the finance minister section seems to be out of place: "Martin balanced the budget by decreasing federal transfer payments to the provinces."

I think it should be removed. It just doesn't seem to belong, and it is inaccurate. It leaves the impression that all Martin did was cut the transfer payments, and then he had a balanced budget. At a minimum I think that sentence should be moved to the last paragraph of the finance minister section, where the costs of balancing the budget are discussed. Shanebratt 08:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)shanebratt
 * Yeah, I'd delete it too, because the costs are explained later.Habsfan|t 05:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Shanebratt 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Free use vs Fair Use images
The subject of copyrighted vs. Fair Use images has been discussed recently at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper#We_should_remove_the_unfree_image

I'm therefore helping the project out by replacing the fair use, copyrighted image here with a free use image. Michael Dorosh 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope there's some more articles that you plan to help out.  --JGGardiner 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just updated the photo at Jean Chretien. Helpful Mike 11:02, 11 July 2006 (MST)

The free image was removed again, and it should be put back. --Rob 05:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This image looks like crap. the image of paul martin that's been there for years is alot better and is fair use under crown copyright, why change it when you can't find a more professional image, or is this site full of tories? Canadian crown copyright images are used on a nother of other articles and they haven't been removed, at least find a better quality image before reverting back to that ugly pose photo, we can all agree it's not a good pose eh --User:Cmc0
 * Take a look at Stephen Harper which has a free image now, which is no "prettier". Fair use criteria point#1 says we *must* use the free image alternative.   Also DO NOT ever upload a fairuse image overtop a free image, as you did with Image:Paulmartin.jpg.  That caused several articles to be effected, with nobody able to detect it on their article watch list.  --User:Thivierr 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as I pointed out at the Stephen Harper page, Thivierr (Rob) doesn't know how to interpret the fair use rules properly. They clearly state that if a substandard free use image is being used, it is permissible to use a fair use image until a free one of equal quality can be found. Unfortunately, "Rob" is unable to interpret the rule correctly or fairly. So until someone more eloquent than I can pound it into his head that the fair use images are ok for use under the terms of the very rules he keeps quoting, there's not much we can do about it.Michael Dorosh 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At least look for a better picture then, I mean, Wikipedia can use the crown copyright picture that's been up there for years, why are you guys changing the picture just now, wikipedia hasn't been sued or anything. And I guess you guys got alot of work to do, if you want to replace the thousands of crown copyright images (British, Canadian etc). So tell me this, are you going to replace the Tony Blair main image i posted up with a cropped white house photo then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmc0 (talk • contribs).

 * You do realize, somebody asked the same question at Stephen Harper, when that was replaced. That led to this article being fixed also.  Other articles may also need to be fixed.  Crown Copyright in Canada specifically restricts commercial use, which Wikipedia demands.  Hence, it's not allowed.  I do not know about British Crown Copyright.  It may or may not be a problem. Not all "Crown Copyrights" are the same.  --User:Thivierr 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but ask yourself this? the rule page you posted asks Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?"  I would say no because the bad image you posted stands out (candid non professional shot, wrinkles shown, eyes squinted etc). I haven't seen anyone but you complain about the crown copyright image that's beeen there for years, why change the image now? the crown copyright at least allows us to use the image if i provide the source(which I did).
 * Please read Talk:Stephen Harper. This conversion has already been done.  --User:Thivierr 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So what image would you allow to be posted then, which looks better than that white house cropped pic, your the only one that's complaining --Cmc0 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any image that is in the public domain or released under a free license that allows commmercial reuse (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) can be used. User:Angr 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this one, it;s the same one that's hanging in parliament and it's the one Martin handed out when he was prime minister--Cmc0 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The original is at fr:Image:PaulMartin.jpg. It's also Canadian Crown Copyright, and therefore not free. User:Angr 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, as I pointed out at the Stephen Harper page, Thivierr (Rob) doesn't know how to interpret the fair use rules properly. They clearly state that if a substandard free use image is being used, it is permissible to use a fair use image until a free one of equal quality can be found. Unfortunately, "Rob" is unable to interpret the rule correctly or fairly. So until someone more eloquent than I can pound it into his head that the fair use images are ok for use under the terms of the very rules he keeps quoting, there's not much we can do about it.Michael Dorosh 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's unfortunate is that you are the one who can't interpret Wikipedia's fair-use policy correctly. The policy says fair-use images are allowed only if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and "Always use a more free alternative if one is available." In both the case of Stephen Harper and the case of Paul Martin, the free image was being used only to show what the man looks like. In both cases, the free images more than adequately convey the information of what the man looks like. Therefore, using the fair-use images is, in both cases, a policy violation. The fair use policy says nothing whatsoever about "substandard" free images, nor does it ever say that a fair-use image can be used "until a free one of equal quality can be found". You just made that up. User:Angr 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is more unfortunate is that Michael is implementing an interpretation that he describes as incorrect, unfair and wrong for the purpose of generating discussion. Michael, please see WP:POINT.  --JGGardiner 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I just said over at Talk:Stephen Harper, I suspect Michael believes he is violating Wikipedia to make a point but in fact, by going through all the Canadian PM articles and replacing fair-use images with free ones, he is actually improving Wikipedia to make a point. Probably the first time I've encountered anyone doing that. User:Angr 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is much of an improvement to change the infobox picture but leave the other fair use pictures in the article. I would have thought, according to Michael's arguments (with which I agreed) the infobox is uniquely important and should be the last one changed from fair use.  In any event I don't like to see an attempt to create discord.  But since there seems to be little, I doubt that I'll complain again.  --JGGardiner 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, of course all instances of the fair-use image need to be replaced once a free image is found. But tracking down and uploading free images, as Michael is doing, is certainly an improvement to Wikipedia. User:Angr 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That image is awful. Can't we find anything with which to replace it? --Arctic Gnome 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not the official PMO version from when he was in power? That's perfectly PD, AFAIK. Frankly, I'm amazed that all the Canadian PM articles don't use them. All the US President articles do. Someobdy should get on that immediately, it's actually pretty. . .  low. . . that it hasn't been done yet. Sigma-6 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The PMO must have put some official photo in the public domain. --Arctic Gnome 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise Canadian politician images suddenly get the shaft by Wikipedia rules but American images do not. I saw this coming a LONG time ago and if nobody else did then you were a blind fool. I argued against the policy years ago but no they said it was nothing against Canadian law, that it would affect US laws the same, but look now the Canadian images are gone but American images are still present. NorthernThunder 05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic not
Paul Martin is not Roman Catholic. He is not pro-choice either. He is pro-abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 (talk • contribs).
 * It's generally accepted that "pro-choice" refers to those who favor abortion rights, and that "pro-life" refers to those who favor the rights of the unborn child. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying. Luna Santin 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. Religiously and morally, I am opposed to the word "choice" being used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 (talk • contribs).

If your going to change catergories like pro choice to pro abortion then A. Ensure such a catergory exists B. Choose a better reason than the mere shock value of the word "abortion" over "choice" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.135.194 (talk • contribs).

 * Agreed, it would be a good idea to get a sense of what is and isn't an acceptable form of argument if you're going to contribute to encyclopedic articles. Incidentally, Paul Martin *is* a Roman Catholic, and the Pope intimated that he might be excommunicated for his policy position on Abortion and Gay Marriage.  Martin explained (and you might want to take note) that in Canada, there is a separation of Church and State, in which policymakers leave their religious views outside the legislature.  Paul Martin's Catholicism is no more your business than it was the legislature's, and ultimately, the way he practises it has nothing to do with the policy of the party he represented as PM.  You might also be interested to hear that there is a logical fallacy called the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, in which the person engaging in the fallacious argument says '. . .No true Catholic (or Scotsman) would support Gay Marriage as PM, even if the electorate demanded he do so in a democratic society with a separation of Church and State (refuse to eat Haggis).'  Your opinions of what constitutes a Catholic have no bearing on what religion Paul Martin chooses to observe. Sigma-6 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin's Successoer Dion
In the Liberal Leaders succession box, I've replaced Bill Graham with Stephane Dion. Why? Because, all the other Liberal Leader's succession boxes don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See this discussion on the Stephane Dion talk page. GoodDay 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Lasalle-Emard?
This Montreal Gazette article says that Martin will not be running again in Lasalle-Emard, but mentions this incidentally (Jean Lapierre's decision being the main story). Can anyone vouch for whether or not this has been officially established? "It would be unlikely given the circumstances" doesn't count.

Interestingly, paulmartin.ca is a 404 for me. He doesn't seem to have a constituency website up. Very odd. -Joshuapaquin 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is speculation and since it did not come from Martin's office, you have to start it by saying "A report speculated that...". Lapierre on the other hand did announce that he would not run.GoldDragon 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The article doesn't say that it's speculation. It explicitly says that "Martin has already announced he will not run again in his southwest Montreal riding of LaSalle-Emard." -Joshuapaquin 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry about that, I saw another article that speculated that Martin would not run. Anyhow, this is clearly okay.GoldDragon 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know where I saw it, however, I do remember him saying that he will not be running for re-election in the next general election. VanceBaker (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Monarchist language
Are these pro-monarchy changes really necessary: ? The new wording is technically accurate, but there are very few people in Canada who actually describe changes in government with reference to the apparatus of the monarchy. CJCurrie 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Honourary degrees
Should the honourary degrees be used in the opening? I know that it is legitimate but it is rarely done. Stephen Colbert even does it as a joke. --JGGardiner 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Bad form to list honourary degrees, I should think. Also, highly impractical. If an individual has dozens of honourary degrees we couldn't list them all. So how would we select which ones to list? Sunray (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

2004 Election
I'm always uncomfortable with presenting election analysis in the article as if it were fact. Everyone has different opinions. In any event, this sentence is not supported by the note attached to it: "These attacks also attracted crucial voters who had been leaning towards the NDP, which enabled the Liberals to hold on to several ridings by thin margins." --JGGardiner (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with your comments. I is hard to do well and this account does not cut it. The second ref doesn't mention what is being claimed in the section. Therefore it is original research. Sunray (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pantsless Photo
User:Nneonneo claims that the picture in revision history is 'unencyclopedic' however he has failed to point out why, and has not refuted the statements made in the initial revert: "shows sense of humour and recent speaking engagements". Until an explanation of why Paul Martin's sense of humour is not relevant to Paul Martin, and why Paul Martin's recent speaking engagements are not relevant to Paul Martin is provided the image will be reverted.

76.10.128.253 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with talk Paul Martin's sense of humour and his recent speaking engagements are clearly relevant and encyclopedic. I keep hearing the word unencyclopedic, but you haven't explained how or cited policy, clearly many editors/readers feel this is relevant and enecyclopedic, so rather than just going back and forth perhaps User:Nneonneo can explain his reasoning in a bit more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkarau (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read below. I very clearly outlined why it is not encyclopedic. nneonneo talk 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So the argument is that since he has other speaking engagements and is not known for a sense of humor then it is not relevant? Regardless, if he does have a large number of speaking engagements, including mention of this on his page seems appropriate, as does a picture from one. While other images may exist (you haven't shown any which are under a license we can use), this one is under an acceptable license and indicates his sense of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkarau (talk • contribs) 10 April 2009 06:55 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts with ~, and make sure to use Show Preview to avoid messing up someone else's comment. Thanks. nneonneo talk 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't illustrated why any of that is relevant to the article ("seems appropriate" is not justification). Furthermore, for *anything* to be considered for inclusion, it must have been covered in multiple, reliable, independent sources, which neither his sense of humor, nor this speaking engagement have. nneonneo talk 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This was covered by CTV & The Daily Bulletin (perhaps more), so we've got multiple reliable independent sources (CTV is owned by CTVglobemedia Inc. and The Daily Bulletin is operated by the University of Waterloo). Hkarau (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations? nneonneo talk 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Daily Bulletin http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2009/feb/17tu.html, CTV MyNews http://mynews.ctv.ca/mediadetails/629793?collection=567&q=+&offset=1&siteT= . Sadly the broadcast CTV video is no longer available (it was previously available from http://www.southwesternontario.ctv.ca/news.php?id=3926 ), but the summery clearly indicates coverage of his talk at Waterloo. A press release issued by the University of Waterloo in advance of his talk is also available from http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5039 . I am restoring the original image as it appears all concerns have been addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.136.192 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Yes, I think that covers everything. nneonneo talk 16:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 * For reference purposes, this is the image with accompanying caption. nneonneo talk 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * In reply to your point(s): First of all, I'm not the only one with this feeling: User:CJCurrie has also reverted the addition of this image three times (first time: "There's something vaguely "photoshopped" about this, not to mention unencyclopedic.", second time: "As I said, it's unencyclopedic in any event.", third time: "Actually, I'm of the opinion that the image is unencyclopedic even if it's real."). Paul Martin's "sense of humor" isn't relevant to the article, as he is not particularly known for his humor, and no reliable source has reported on this particular aspect. Paul Martin has many speaking engagements, most covered by images far more flattering than the one which is continually reposted here. Further, this particular speaking engagement itself is not a particularly notable event, which means that the image is not useful in that context either. However, if you had a sufficiently high-resolution version of this image, it might be a suitable replacement (after cropping, of course) for the rather crappy portrait we've got now :) nneonneo talk 03:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think there is a consensus that favours inclusion. I wonder if it is also a WP:BLP concern especially with a concern that it may have been photoshopped. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The concerns of photoshopping seem unfounded, especially since CTV found it credible enough to remain in the MyNEWS section of their website which is pretty heavily patrolled for hoaxes and the people who cried photoshop were unable to back up their claims with specific problems with the image. Perhaps User:Andareed can shed more light on the situation with the photo. In any case I don't think WP:BLP isn't a concern here, the image is pretty credible. Ebering (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 * This photo is clearly supported by reputable news sources. Any claims of photoshopping are original research, which is unacceptable on wikipedia. Andareed (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

im awesome yes i am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.211.43 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.235.109.161, 19 June 2010
Paul Martin has recently received the following "Honorary Degrees"

Queen's University, 2010 and University of Western Ontario, 2010

64.235.109.161 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.

 * Avic enna sis @ 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Paul Martin
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paul Martin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dominionofcanada.com": From Lester B. Pearson: http://dominionofcanada.com/commemorative_medals/index.html From William Lyon Mackenzie King:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul Martin


text:
Talk:440

Untitled 2002 comment
sport? perhaps judicious use of the template is called for?

Usage of onlyinclude
Not being over-familiar with template:onlyinclude, would somebody care to elaborate on its reason for apparent usage in the == Events == section?

And is this the same as Help:Template? Trafford09 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:440


text:
Screen Actors Guild

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) was an American labor union which represented over 100,000 film and television principal and background performers worldwide. On March 30, 2012, the union leadership announced that the SAG membership voted to merge with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) to create SAG-AFTRA.

Background
According to SAG's Mission Statement, the Guild sought to: negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements that establish equitable levels of compensation, benefits, and working conditions for its performers; collect compensation for exploitation of recorded performances by its members, and provide protection against unauthorized use of those performances; and preserve and expand work opportunities for its members.

The Guild was founded in 1933 in an effort to eliminate the exploitation of Hollywood actors, who were being forced into oppressive multi-year contracts with the major movie studios. Opposition to these contracts included that they did not include restrictions on work hours or minimum rest periods, and often had clauses that automatically renewed at the studios' discretion. These contracts were notorious for allowing the studios to dictate the public and private lives of the performers who signed them, and most did not have provisions to allow the performer to end the deal.

The Screen Actors Guild was associated with the Associated Actors and Artistes of America (AAAA), which is the primary association of performer's unions in the United States. AAAA is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. SAG claimed exclusive jurisdiction over motion picture performances, and shared jurisdiction of radio, television, Internet, and other new media with its sister union AFTRA, with which it shared 44,000 dual members. Internationally, the SAG was affiliated with the International Federation of Actors.

In addition to its main offices in Los Angeles, SAG also maintained branches in several major US cities, including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Nashville, New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

Beginning in 1995, SAG began to award the Screen Actors Guild Awards, which are considered an indicator of success at the Academy Awards. It continues through SAG-AFTRA.

Early years
In 1925, the Masquers Club was formed by actors discontented with the grueling work hours at the Hollywood studios. This was one of the major concerns which led to the creation of the Screen Actors Guild in 1933. Another was that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which at that time arbitrated between the producers and actors on contract disputes, had a membership policy which was by invitation only.

A meeting in March 1933 of six actors (Berton Churchill, Charles Miller, Grant Mitchell, Ralph Morgan, Alden Gay, and Kenneth Thomson) led to the guild's foundation. Three months later, three of the six and eighteen others became the guild's first officers and board of directors: Ralph Morgan (its first president), Alden Gay, Kenneth Thomson, Alan Mowbray (who personally funded the organization when it was first founded), Leon Ames, Tyler Brooke, Clay Clement, James Gleason, Lucile Webster Gleason, Boris Karloff, Claude King, Noel Madison, Reginald Mason, Bradley Page, Willard Robertson, Ivan Simpson, C. Aubrey Smith, Charles Starrett, Richard Tucker, Arthur Vinton, Morgan Wallace, and Lyle Talbot.

Many high-profile actors refused to join SAG initially. This changed when the producers made an agreement amongst themselves not to bid competitively for talent. A pivotal meeting, at the home of Frank Morgan (Ralph's brother, who played the title role in The Wizard of Oz), was what gave SAG its critical mass. Prompted by Eddie Cantor's insistence, at that meeting, that any response to that producer's agreement help all actors, not just the already established ones, it took only three weeks for SAG membership to go from around 80 members to more than 4,000. Cantor's participation was critical, particularly because of his friendship with the recently elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After several years and the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, the producers agreed to negotiate with SAG in 1937.

Actors known for their early support of SAG (besides the founders) include Edward Arnold, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Dudley Digges, Porter Hall, Paul Harvey, Jean Hersholt, Russell Hicks, Murray Kinnell, Gene Lockhart, Bela Lugosi, David Manners, Fredric March, Adolphe Menjou, Chester Morris, Jean Muir, George Murphy, Erin O'Brien-Moore, Irving Pichel, Dick Powell, Edward G. Robinson, Edwin Stanley, Gloria Stuart, Lyle Talbot, Franchot Tone, Warren William, and Robert Young.

Blacklist years
In October 1947, the members of a list of suspected communists working in the Hollywood film industry were summoned to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), which was investigating Communist influence in the Hollywood labor unions. Ten of those summoned, dubbed the "Hollywood Ten", refused to cooperate, and were charged with contempt of Congress and sentenced to prison. Several liberal members of SAG, led by Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Danny Kaye, and Gene Kelly, formed the Committee for the First Amendment (CFA) and flew to Washington, DC, in late October 1947 to show support for the Hollywood Ten.

The president of SAG – future United States President Ronald Reagan – also known to the FBI as Confidential Informant "T-10", testified before the committee but never publicly named names. Instead, according to an FBI memorandum in 1947: "T-10 advised Special Agent [name deleted] that he has been made a member of a committee headed by Mayer, the purpose of which is allegedly is to 'purge' the motion-picture industry of Communist party members, which committee was an outgrowth of the Thomas committee hearings in Washington and subsequent meetings ... He felt that lacking a definite stand on the part of the government, it would be very difficult for any committee of motion-picture people to conduct any type of cleansing of their household". Subsequently, a climate of fear, enhanced by the threat of detention under the provisions of the McCarran Internal Security Act, permeated the film industry. On November 17, 1947, the Screen Actors Guild voted to force its officers to take a "non-communist" pledge. On November 25 (the day after the full House approved the ten citations for contempt) in what has become known as the Waldorf Statement, Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), issued a press release: "We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods."

None of those blacklisted were proven to advocate overthrowing the government – most simply had Marxist or socialist views. The Waldorf Statement marked the beginning of the Hollywood blacklist that saw hundreds of people prevented from working in the film industry. During the height of what is now referred to as McCarthyism, the Screen Writers Guild gave the studios the right to omit from the screen the name of any individual who had failed to clear his name before Congress. At a 1997 ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the Blacklist, the Guild's president made this statement:

"Only our sister union, Actors Equity Association, dared to stand behind its members and help them continue their creative lives in the theater. ... Unfortunately, there are no credits to restore, nor any other belated recognition that we can offer our members who were blacklisted. They could not work under assumed names or employ surrogates to front for them. An actor's work and his or her identity are inseparable. Screen Actors Guild's participation in tonight's event must stand as our testament to all those who suffered that, in the future, we will strongly support our members and work with them to assure their rights as defined and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

1970s to 2012
The Screen Actors Guild Ethnic Minorities Committee was co-founded in 1972 by actors Henry Darrow, Edith Diaz, Ricardo Montalbán and Carmen Zapata.

The Screen Actors Guild Women's Committee was founded in 1972.

In 1980, SAG and AFTRA held a strike over issues regarding profit sharing from home media and pay TV.

Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild
In 1998, Naomi Marquez filed suit against SAG and Lakeside Productions claiming they had breached their duty of fair representation. The claim was denied by the Supreme Court.

Merger with AFTRA
The membership of the Screen Actors Guild voted to merge with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists on March 30, 2012.

Composition
According to SAG's Department of Labor records since 2006, when membership classifications were first reported, 30%, or almost a third, of the guild's total membership had consistently been considered "withdrawn", "suspended", or otherwise not categorized as "active" members. These members were ineligible to vote in the guild. "Honorable withdrawals" constituted the largest portion of these, at 20% of the total membership, or 36,284 members before the merger in 2012. "Suspended" members were the second largest, at 10%, or 18,402 members. This classification scheme is continued by SAG-AFTRA.

Becoming a member
An actor was eligible to join the Screen Actors Guild by meeting the criteria in any of the following three categories: principal actor in a SAG production, background actor (originally the "three voucher rule"), and one-year member of an affiliated union (with a principal role). The basic categories were:
 * Principal actor: Any actor who works as a principal actor for a minimum of one day on a project (film, commercial, TV show, etc.) under a producer's agreement with SAG, and the actor has been paid at the appropriate SAG daily, three-day, or weekly rate was then considered "SAG-eligible". A SAG-eligible actor could work in other SAG or non-SAG productions up to 30 days, during which that actor was classified as a "Taft–Hartley". After the 30-day Taft–Hartley period has expired, the actor could not work on any further SAG productions until first joining SAG, by: paying the initiation fee with the first half-year minimum membership dues, and agreeing to abide by the Guild's rules and bylaws.
 * Background actor: For years, SAG had the "three voucher rule". After collecting three valid union vouchers for three separate days of work, a background actor could become SAG-eligible; however, employment must have been confirmed with payroll data, not vouchers. SAG productions required a minimum number of SAG members be employed as background actors before a producer was permitted to hire a non-union background actor. For television productions in the West Coast Zones, the minimum number of SAG background actors was 21 (25 in the New York Zone), for commercials the minimum was 40, and for feature films, the minimum was 57 in the West Coast zones (85 in the New York zone). In rare circumstances, due to the uniqueness of a role, or constraints on the numbers of available SAG actors or last-minute cancellations, those minimums were unable to be met. When this happened, producers were permitted to fill one or more of those union spots with non-union actors. The non-union actor chosen to fill the union spot was then issued a union background voucher for the day, and that non-union actor was entitled to all the same benefits and pay that the union actor would have received under that voucher. This was called a Taft–Hartley voucher. The SAG-Eligible background actor could continue working in non-union productions, but after obtaining 3 Taft–Hartley vouchers were given a 30-day window where they were allowed to work as many SAG jobs as they wish. After the 30-day window had expired the actor became a "Must Join" with SAG, meaning they could no longer work any SAG projects without formally joining the union. They could continue to work non-union jobs, however, until they officially became a SAG member.
 * Member of an affiliated union: Members in good standing, for at least one year, of any of the other unions affiliated with the AAAA, and who had worked as a principal at least once in an area of the affiliated union's jurisdiction, and who had been paid for their work in that principal role, were eligible to join SAG.

Initiation fee and membership dues
Members joining the Los Angeles, New York, or Miami SAG locals were assessed an initial fee to join the Guild of $3,000. At the time of initiation, the first minimum semi-annual membership dues payment of $58 must have also been paid, bringing the total amount due upon initiation into the Guild to $3,058. All other SAG locals still assessed initiation fees at the previous rate. Members from other locales who worked in Los Angeles, New York, or Miami after joining were charged the difference between the fee they paid their local and the higher rate in those markets.

Membership dues were calculated and due semi-annually, and were based upon the member's earnings from SAG productions. The minimum annual dues amount was $116, with an additional 1.85% of the performer's income up to $200,000. Income from $200,000 to $500,000 was assessed at 0.5%, and income from $500,000 to $1 million was assessed at 0.25%. For the calculation of dues, there was a total earnings cap at $1 million. Therefore, the maximum dues payable in any one calendar year by any single member was limited to $6,566.

SAG members who became delinquent in their dues without formally requesting a leave of absence from the Guild were assessed late penalties, and risked being ejected from the Guild and could be forced to pay the initiation fee again to regain their membership.

Global Rule One
The SAG Constitution and Bylaws stated "No member shall work as a performer or make an agreement to work as a performer for any producer who has not executed a basic minimum agreement with the Guild which is in full force and effect", and this became known as Rule One of the organization. Every SAG performer, as a condition of membership, agreed to abide by this and all other SAG rules; thus SAG members could not perform in any non-union project that was within SAG's jurisdiction. Beginning in 2002 the Guild pursued a policy of worldwide enforcement of Rule One, and renamed it Global Rule One.

Unique stage names
Like other organizations that represent actors, SAG rules stipulated that no two members could have identical working names; many actors were thus prevented from registering under their own names and had to make changes. Some maintained their usual name but added a middle initial; others adopted a stage name quite different from their legal name to comply with this rule. Notable examples include Michael Keaton, Michael J. Fox and Emma Stone, whose birth names "Michael Douglas", "Michael Fox" and "Emily Stone", respectively, had already been registered by other actors.

Member benefits and privileges
SAG contracts with producers contained a variety of protections for Guild performers. Among these provisions were: minimum rates of pay, adequate working conditions, special protection and education requirements for minors, arbitration of disputes and grievances, and affirmative action in auditions and hiring.

Standardized pay and work conditions
All members of the Guild agreed to work only for producers who had signed contracts with SAG. These contracts spelled out in detail the responsibilities that producers must assume when hiring SAG performers. Specifically, the SAG basic contract specified: the number of hours performers may work, the frequency of meal breaks required, the minimum wages or "scale" at which performers must be compensated for their work, overtime pay, travel accommodations, wardrobe allowances, stunt pay, private dressing rooms, and adequate rest periods between performances. When applicable, and with due regard to the safety of the individuals, cast and crew, women and minorities were to be considered for doubling roles and for descript and non-descript stunts on a functional, non-discriminatory basis.

The Producers and the Pension and Health Plans
Performers who meet the eligibility criteria of working a certain number of days or attaining a certain threshold in income derived from SAG productions could join the Producers Pension and Health Plans offered by the Guild. The eligibility requirements varied by age of the performer and the desired plan chosen (there were two health plans). There were also Dental, Vision, and Life & Disability coverage included as part of the two plans.

Residuals
The Guild secured residuals payments in perpetuity to its members for broadcast and re-broadcast of films, TV shows, and TV commercials through clauses in the basic SAG agreements with producers.

Early strikes
In July 1948, a strike was averted at the last minute as the SAG and major producers agreed upon a new collective bargaining contract. The major points agreed upon included: full union shop for actors to continue, negotiations for films sent direct to TV, producers could not sue an actor for breach of contract if they strike (but the guild could only strike when the contract expires).

In March 1960, SAG went on strike against the seven major studios. This was the first industry-wide strike in the 50-year history of movie making. Earlier walkouts involved production for television. The Writers Guild of America had been on strike since January 31, 1960 with similar demands to the actors. The independents were not affected since they signed new contracts. The dispute rested on actors wanting to be paid 6% or 7% of the gross earnings of pictures made since 1948 and sold to television. Actors also wanted a pension and welfare fund.

In December 1978, members of SAG went on strike for the fourth time in its 45-year history. It joined the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists in picket lines in Los Angeles and New York. The unions said that management's demand would cut actors' salaries. The argument was over filming commercials. Management agreed to up salaries from $218 to $250 per scene, but if the scene were not used at all, the actor would not be paid.

Strike and Emmy Awards boycott of 1980
In July, SAG members walked out on strike, along with AFTRA, the union for television and radio artists, and the American Federation of Musicians. The union joined the television artists in calling for a successful boycott against that year's prime-time Emmy awards. Powers Boothe was the only one of the 52 nominated actors to attend: "This is either the most courageous moment of my career or the dumbest" he quipped during his acceptance speech. The guild ratified a new pact, for a 32.25% increase in minimum salaries and a 4.5% share of movies made for pay TV, and the strike ended on October 25.

The commercials strike of 2000
The commercials strike of 2000 was extremely controversial. Some factions within SAG call it a success, asserting that it not only saved Pay-Per-Play (residuals) but it also increased cable residuals by 140% up from $1,014 to $2,460. Others suggested almost identical terms were available in negotiation without a strike. In the wake of the strike, SAG, and its sister union AFTRA, gathered evidence on over 1,500 non-members who had worked during the strike. SAG trial boards found Elizabeth Hurley and Tiger Woods guilty of performing in non-union commercials and each was fined $100,000.

Beyond the major studios
SAG Principal members could not work on non-union productions. Union background actors were not fully covered nationwide and could work non-union outside the background zones. These background zones included the state of Hawaii, 4 zones in California, Las Vegas NV, and a 300-mile radius around New York City. Many film schools had SAG Student Film Agreements with the Guild to allow SAG actors to work in their projects. SAGIndie was formed in 1997 to promote using SAG actors; SAG also had Low Budget Contracts that were meant to encourage the use of SAG members on films produced outside of the major studios and to prevent film productions from leaving the country, known as "Runaway production". In the fight against "Runaway production", the SAG National Board voted unanimously to support the Film and Television Action Committee (FTAC) and its 301(a) Petition which asked the US Trade Representative to investigate Canadian film subsidies for their violation of trade agreements Canada signed with the United States.

Financial core
Financial core, or Fi-Core, was a payment to the union to allow someone to work in a union environment without being a member of the union. The concept was defined in 1963 by Supreme Court case Labor Board v. General Motors and clarified for the communications industry in 1988 via Communications Workers of America v. Beck.

Approximately 96% of normal union dues were paid to make an actor a Financial Core member of the SAG, and Financial Core members were not permitted to "represent themselves as Screen Actors Guild members". Additionally, the Screen Actors Guild said "Fi-Core/FPNM are viewed as scabs ... by SAG members, directors, and writers—most of whom also belong to entertainment unions". This statement was met with skepticism by some.

Former SAG President Charlton Heston was apparently a supporter of Fi-Core.

National Women's Committee
Entertainment remains among the most gender unequal industries in the United States. The National Women's Committee operated within the National Statement of Purpose to promote equal employment opportunities for its female SAG members. It also encouraged positive images of women in film and television, in order to end sexual stereotypes and educate the industry about the representation of women, both in numbers and quality of representation.

SAG Women's Committee had been dedicated to working towards strategic objectives adopted from the Fourth World Conference on Women Beijing Platform of 1995. These objectives included supporting research into all aspects of women and the media so as to define areas needing attention and action. The SAG Hollywood Division Women's Committee also encouraged the media to refrain from presenting women as inferior beings and exploiting them as sexual objects and commodities.

Woman's Committee timeline

 * 1972: The Screen Actors Guild Women's Committee is founded. Brigham Young University conducts a study that reveals 81.7% of television roles are male, versus 18.3% female.
 * 1974–1976: In conjunction with the Directors Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild compiles statistical surveys that explicitly document the disenfranchisement of their women members, often linking the data to a specific studio, network and in several cases individual television shows. These efforts are spearheaded by the two organizations' individual Women's Committees.
 * 1975: Kathleen Nolan becomes the Screen Actors Guild's first female president.
 * 1979: A study reveals that between 1949 and 1979, 7,332 feature films were made and released by major distributors. Fourteen, a mere 0.19%, were directed by women.
 * October 10, 1979: Women and Minorities Rally. President Kathleen Nolan leads protest rally, with signs reading "Women and Minorities: Not Seen on the American Scene"..."Window Dressing on the Set"...and "TV: it's Time for a Facelift".
 * 1981–1985: Leslie Hoffman, first stuntwoman elected to the Hollywood Screen Actors Board. She works towards hiring more women, minorities, seniors, and disabled performers as stuntpeople. She is blacklisted by the Screen Actors Guild Board and Stuntmen Groups.
 * 1984: SAG creates additional low-budget motion picture agreement, giving advantages to productions that hire more women, minorities, seniors, and disabled performers. SAG's New York branch forms Women's Voice-Over Committee to study why women get only 10–20% of voiceover work.
 * 1986: Women's voice-over study by McCollum/Spielman and Company indicates "it makes absolutely no difference whether a male or female voice is used as a TV commercial voice-over", destroying long-held advertising industry assertion that male voices "sell better" and carry "more authority".
 * 1989: A SAG report reveals that 71% of all roles in feature films and 64% of all roles in TV went to men. The report said the combined income of men more than doubled that of women ($644 million to $296 million).
 * 1990: At the SAG National Women's Conference, Meryl Streep keynotes first national event, emphasizing the decline in women's work opportunities, pay parity, and role models within the film industry. She lashes out at the film industry for downplaying the importance of women both on screen and off.
 * 1996: Composition of female leading roles rises to 40%, but supporting roles for women decline to 33%.
 * 1997: SAG contracts for actresses exceed $472 million, while male SAG contracts receive more than $928 million.
 * 2004: Only 37% of all SAG television and film roles go to women.
 * 2008: Kathryn Bigelow becomes the first woman to win the Oscar for Best Director of a Motion Picture, after being only the fourth woman in history to secure a nomination. Statistics show that only 9% of directors are female.
 * 2009: Dr. Martha Lauzen of the Alliance for Women Film Journalists, conducts a study revealing that, of 2009's top 250 films at box offices, women comprised only 16% of the directors, producers, writers, and other top jobs. This represents a 3% decline from the 2001 study showing 19% female composition. Female directors fall from a low 9% in 2008, to a meager 7%. Warner Brothers Pictures and Paramount Pictures did not release a single film directed by a woman.
 * 2010: A study carried out by the Annenberg School for Communication and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media finds that male characters outnumber female characters by 2.42 to one in top-grossing American films.
 * 2010: Ex-Board Member Leslie Hoffman successfully fights to get Disability Health Plans for two stuntmen and a reimbursement for a disabled stuntwoman.

title: Screen Actors Guild


text:
Unitary matrix

In linear algebra, an invertible complex square matrix $U$ is unitary if its matrix inverse $U^{−1}$ equals its conjugate transpose $U^{*}$, that is, if

$$U^* U = UU^* = I,$$

where $I$ is the identity matrix.

In physics, especially in quantum mechanics, the conjugate transpose is referred to as the Hermitian adjoint of a matrix and is denoted by a dagger (†), so the equation above is written

$$U^\dagger U = UU^\dagger = I.$$

A complex matrix $U$ is special unitary if it is unitary and its matrix determinant equals $1$.

For real numbers, the analogue of a unitary matrix is an orthogonal matrix. Unitary matrices have significant importance in quantum mechanics because they preserve norms, and thus, probability amplitudes.

Properties
For any unitary matrix $U$ of finite size, the following hold:
 * Given two complex vectors $x$ and $y$, multiplication by $U$ preserves their inner product; that is, $⟨Ux, Uy⟩ = ⟨x, y⟩$.
 * $U$ is normal ($$U^* U = UU^*$$).
 * $U$ is diagonalizable; that is, $U$ is unitarily similar to a diagonal matrix, as a consequence of the spectral theorem. Thus, $U$ has a decomposition of the form $$U = VDV^*,$$ where $V$ is unitary, and $D$ is diagonal and unitary.
 * $$\left|\det(U)\right| = 1$$. That is, $$\det(U)$$ will be on the unit circle of the complex plane.
 * Its eigenspaces are orthogonal.
 * $U$ can be written as $U = e^{iH}$, where $e$ indicates the matrix exponential, $i$ is the imaginary unit, and $H$ is a Hermitian matrix.

For any nonnegative integer $n$, the set of all $n × n$ unitary matrices with matrix multiplication forms a group, called the unitary group $U(n)$.

Every square matrix with unit Euclidean norm is the average of two unitary matrices.

Equivalent conditions
If U is a square, complex matrix, then the following conditions are equivalent:
 * 1) $$U$$ is unitary.
 * 2) $$U^*$$  is unitary.
 * 3) $$U$$ is invertible with $$U^{-1} = U^*$$.
 * 4) The columns of $$U$$ form an orthonormal basis of $$\Complex^n$$ with respect to the usual inner product. In other words, $$U^*U = I$$.
 * 5) The rows of $$U$$ form an orthonormal basis of $$\Complex^n$$ with respect to the usual inner product. In other words, $$UU^* = I$$.
 * 6) $$U$$ is an isometry with respect to the usual norm. That is, $$\|Ux\|_2 = \|x\|_2$$ for all $$x \in \Complex^n$$, where $\|x\|_2 = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n |x_i|^2}$.
 * 7) $$U$$ is a normal matrix (equivalently, there is an orthonormal basis formed by eigenvectors of $$U$$) with eigenvalues lying on the unit circle.

2 × 2 unitary matrix
One general expression of a 2 × 2 unitary matrix is

$$U = \begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ -e^{i\varphi} b^* & e^{i\varphi} a^* \\ \end{bmatrix}, \qquad \left| a \right|^2 + \left| b \right|^2 = 1\ ,$$

which depends on 4 real parameters (the phase of $a$, the phase of $b$, the relative magnitude between $a$ and $b$, and the angle $φ$). The form is configured so the determinant of such a matrix is $$ \det(U) = e^{i \varphi} ~. $$

The sub-group of those elements $$\ U\ $$ with $$\ \det(U) = 1\ $$ is called the special unitary group SU(2).

Among several alternative forms, the matrix $U$ can be written in this form: $$\ U = e^{i\varphi / 2} \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\alpha} \cos \theta & e^{i\beta} \sin \theta \\ -e^{-i\beta} \sin \theta & e^{-i\alpha} \cos \theta \\ \end{bmatrix}\ ,$$

where $$\ e^{i\alpha} \cos \theta = a\ $$ and $$\ e^{i\beta} \sin \theta = b\ ,$$ above, and the angles $$\ \varphi, \alpha, \beta, \theta\ $$ can take any values.

By introducing $$\ \alpha = \psi + \delta\ $$ and $$\ \beta = \psi - \delta\ ,$$ has the following factorization:

$$ U = e^{i\varphi /2} \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\psi} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-i\psi} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \cos \theta & \sin \theta \\ -\sin \theta & \cos \theta \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\delta} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-i\delta} \end{bmatrix} ~. $$

This expression highlights the relation between 2 × 2 unitary matrices and 2 × 2 orthogonal matrices of angle $θ$.

Another factorization is

$$U = \begin{bmatrix} \cos \rho &   -\sin \rho \\ \sin \rho &   \;\cos \rho \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\xi} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\zeta} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \;\cos \sigma &   \sin \sigma \\ -\sin \sigma  &   \cos \sigma \\ \end{bmatrix} ~. $$

Many other factorizations of a unitary matrix in basic matrices are possible.

title: Unitary matrix


text:
William Kent

William Kent (c. 1685 – 12 April 1748) was an English architect, landscape architect, painter and furniture designer of the early 18th century. He began his career as a painter, and became Principal Painter in Ordinary or court painter, but his real talent was for design in various media.

Kent introduced the Palladian style of architecture into England with the villa at Chiswick House, and also originated the 'natural' style of gardening known as the English landscape garden at Chiswick, Stowe Gardens in Buckinghamshire, and Rousham House in Oxfordshire. As a landscape gardener he revolutionised the layout of estates, but had limited knowledge of horticulture.

He complemented his houses and gardens with stately furniture for major buildings including Hampton Court Palace, Chiswick House, Devonshire House and Rousham.

Early life
Kent was born in Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire, and baptised on 1 January 1686, as William Cant. His parents were William and Esther Cant (née Shimmings).

Kent's career began as a sign and coach painter, and he was encouraged to study art, design and architecture by his employer. A group of Yorkshire gentlemen sent Kent for a period of study in Rome, and he set sail on 22 July 1709 from Deal, Kent, arriving at Livorno on 15 October. By 18 November he was in Florence, staying there until April 1710 before finally setting off for Rome. In 1713 he was awarded the second medal in the second class for painting in the annual competition run by the Accademia di San Luca for his painting of A Miracle of S. Andrea Avellino.

He also met several important figures including Thomas Coke, later 1st Earl of Leicester, with whom he toured Northern Italy in the summer of 1714 (a tour that led Kent to an appreciation of the architectural style of Andrea Palladio's palaces in Vicenza), and Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni in Rome, for whom he apparently painted some pictures, though no records survive. During his stay in Rome, he painted the ceiling of the church of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi (Church of St. Julian of the Flemings) with the Apotheosis of St. Julian. The most significant meeting was between Kent and Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington.

Kent left Rome for the last time in the autumn of 1719, met Lord Burlington briefly at Genoa, Kent journeying on to Paris, where Lord Burlington later joined him for the final journey back to England before the end of the year. As a painter, he displaced Sir James Thornhill in decorating the new staterooms at Kensington Palace, London; for Burlington, he helped to decorate Chiswick House, especially the painted ceilings, and Burlington House.

Architectural works
Kent started practising as an architect relatively late in life, in the 1730s. He is remembered as an architect of the revived Palladian style in England. Burlington gave him the task of editing The Designs of Inigo Jones... with some additional designs in the Palladian/Jonesian taste by Burlington and Kent, which appeared in 1727. As he rose through the royal architectural establishment, the Board of Works, Kent applied this style to several public buildings in London, for which Burlington's patronage secured him the commissions: the Royal Mews at Charing Cross (1731–33, demolished in 1830), the Treasury buildings in Whitehall (1733–37), and the Horse Guards building in Whitehall (designed shortly before his death and built 1750–1759). These neo-antique buildings were inspired as much by the architecture of Raphael and Giulio Romano as by Palladio. In country house building, major commissions for Kent were designing the interiors of Houghton Hall, Norfolk (c.1725–35), recently built by Colen Campbell for Sir Robert Walpole, but at Holkham Hall (also in Norfolk) the most complete embodiment of Palladian ideals is still to be found; there Kent collaborated with Thomas Coke, the other "architect earl", and had for an assistant Matthew Brettingham, whose own architecture would carry Palladian ideals into the next generation. Walpole's son Horace described Kent as below mediocrity as a painter, a restorer of science as an architect and the father of modern gardening and inventor of an art.

A theatrically Baroque staircase and parade rooms in London, at 44 Berkeley Square, are also notable. Kent's domed pavilions were erected at Badminton House (Gloucestershire) and at Euston Hall (Suffolk).

Kent could provide sympathetic Gothic designs, free of serious antiquarian tendencies, when the context called; he worked on the Gothic screens in Westminster Hall and Gloucester Cathedral.

He worked on the house at 22 Arlington Street in St. James's, a district of the City of Westminster in central London from 1743, when it was commissioned by the newly elevated Prime Minister, Henry Pelham. After Kent's death, the work was completed by his assistant Stephen Wright.

Landscape architect
As a landscape designer, Kent was one of the originators of the English landscape garden, a style of "natural" gardening that revolutionised the laying out of gardens and estates. His projects included Chiswick House, Stowe, Buckinghamshire, from about 1730 onwards, designs for Alexander Pope's villa garden at Twickenham, for Queen Caroline at Richmond, and notably at Rousham House, Oxfordshire, where he created a sequence of Arcadian set-pieces punctuated with temples, cascades, grottoes, Palladian bridges and exedra, opening the field for the larger scale achievements of Capability Brown in the following generation. Smaller Kent works can be found at Shotover Park, Oxfordshire, including a faux Gothic eyecatcher and a domed pavilion. His all-but-lost gardens at Claremont, Surrey, have recently been restored. It is said that he was not above planting dead trees to create the mood he required.

Kent's only downfall was said to be his lack of horticultural knowledge and technical skill (compared to those such as Charles Bridgeman, whose impact on Kent is often underestimated). Nevertheless, his naturalistic style of design was his major contribution to the history of landscape design. Claremont, Stowe, and Rousham are places where their joint efforts can be viewed. Stowe and Rousham are Kent's most famous works. At the latter, Kent elaborated on Bridgeman's 1720s design for the property, adding walls and arches to catch the viewer's eye. At Stowe, Kent used his Italian experience, particularly with the Palladian Bridge. At both sites Kent incorporated his naturalistic approach.

Furniture designer
His stately furniture designs complemented his interiors: he designed furnishings for Hampton Court Palace (1732), Lord Burlington's Chiswick House (1729), London, Thomas Coke's Holkham Hall, Norfolk, Robert Walpole's pile at Houghton Hall, for Devonshire House in London, and at Rousham. The royal barge he designed for Frederick, Prince of Wales can be seen at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

In his own age, Kent's fame and popularity were so great that he was employed to give designs for all things, even for ladies' birthday dresses, of which he could know nothing and which he decorated with the five classical orders of architecture. These and other absurdities drew upon him the satire of William Hogarth who, in October 1725, produced a Burlesque on Kent's Altarpiece at St. Clement Danes.

Walpole tribute
According to Horace Walpole, Kent "was a painter, an architect, and the father of modern gardening. In the first character he was below mediocrity; in the second, he was a restorer of the science; in the last, an original, and the inventor of an art that realizes painting and improves nature. Mahomet imagined an Elysium, Kent created many."

Domestic work

 * Kensington Palace, fresco on grand staircase
 * Wanstead House (designed by Colen Campbell), interior decoration (1721–24)
 * Burlington House, London, interior decoration (c.1727)
 * Chiswick House, London, interiors and furniture (c.1726–29)
 * Houghton Hall, interiors and furniture (c.1726–31) & stables (c.1733-5)
 * Ditchley, Oxfordshire (designed by James Gibbs), interiors (c.1726)
 * Sherborne House, Gloucestershire, furniture designs (1728)
 * Stowe House, interiors and garden buildings (c.1730 to 1748)
 * Alexander Pope's Villa, designs for garden buildings (c.1730) demolished
 * Richmond Gardens, garden buildings 1730–35, demolished
 * Stanwick Park (ascribed), remodelled and interiors (c.1730–40)
 * Raynham Hall, interiors and furniture (c.1731)
 * Kew House (1731–35), demolished 1802
 * Esher Place, the wings (c.1733), demolished
 * Shotover House, Obelisk, Octagonal & Gothic temples (1733)
 * Holkham Hall, with Earl of Burlington & Earl of Leicester executed by Matthew Brettingham (1734–1765)
 * Devonshire House including furniture (1734–35), demolished 1924–5
 * Easton Neston, designed fireplaces (1735)
 * Aske Hall (ascribed), Gothic temple (1735)
 * Claremont Garden, garden buildings (1738), only the domed temple on the island in the lake survives
 * Rousham House, addition of wings and landscaping of the gardens & garden buildings (1738–41)
 * Badminton House, remodelling of the north front, interiors (c.1746–1748)
 * Worcester Lodge at Badminton House, including interior plasterwork (1746)
 * 22 Arlington Street, London (1741–50), completed after Kent's death by Stephen Wright
 * 44 Berkeley Square, London (1742–44)
 * 16 St. James Place, London early (1740s) demolished 1899–1900
 * Oatlands Palace, garden building (c.1745), demolished
 * Euston Hall, Suffolk (1746)
 * Wakefield Lodge, Northamptonshire (c.1748–50)

Public buildings and royal commissions

 * Chiesa di San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, painted ceiling (c.1717)
 * York Minster, marble pavement (1731–35)
 * Royal Mews (1731–33), demolished 1830
 * Royal State Barge (1732)
 * Hampton Court Palace, gateway in Clock Court & rooms for the Duke of Cumberland (1732)
 * Kensington Palace, interiors, including Cupola Room and several murals and painted ceilings (1733–35)
 * former Treasury building Whitehall (1733–37)
 * St James's Palace, the library (1736–37), demolished
 * Westminster Hall, Gothic screen enclosing law courts (1738–39), demolished c.1825
 * York Minster, Gothic pulpit and choir furniture (1741), removed
 * Gloucester Cathedral, Gothic choir-screen (1741), removed 1820
 * Horse Guards (1750–59)

Church memorials

 * Chester Cathedral, to John & Thomas Wainwright
 * Henry VII Lady Chapel, to George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle (1730)
 * York Minster, to Thomas Watson Wentworth (1731)
 * Westminster Abbey to Sir Isaac Newton, sculpted by John Michael Rysbrack (1731)
 * Kirkthorpe church, to Thomas & Catherine Stringer (1731–32)
 * Blenheim Palace Chapel, to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, sculpted by John Michael Rysbrack (1733)
 * Westminster Abbey, to James Stanhope, 1st Earl Stanhope (1733)
 * Westminster Abbey, to William Shakespeare, sculpted by Peter Scheemakers (1740)
 * Ashby-de-la-Zouch, to Theophilus Hastings, 9th Earl of Huntingdon (1746)

In popular culture
In the first episode of the television series The Gentlemen (2024 TV series), his philosophy is referred to as "the reconciliation of the feral with the refined".

title: William Kent


text:
Talk:Human pathogen

Microbe?
The first sentence is misleading, I don't think prions can be considered to fall under "microbes or microorganisms". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.108.154 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
The potency section is contradictory and doesn't read too well either and none of that section has a citation... maybe it should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.48.42 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Neisseria menigitidis? I'm having trouble believing meningitus has never reached the radar on the 'pedia...

Why is Thiomargarita namibiensis listed as a pathogen? What disease does it cause? -- Someone else 22:59 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * woops. it's gone

I'll have this page on my to do list, unless someone lists the mechanics pathogens use to cause disease before me :) -MGM 15:03, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

The page was listed on "pages needing attention", and User:Heidimo also asked me to take a glance at it. IMHO, most material is redundant and could be merged with list of infectious diseases (just add the names of the pathogens to the diseases they cause). Just a list of all known pathogens is a silly endeavour. Any opinions? JFjkjjjyou mum puda W | T@lk  11:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * may be useful for those just wanting the term defined. I think it is now quite good for most purposes.--inks 14:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The section entitled "Types" gives the impression that there are only two categories of pathogenic organisms, namely fungi and viruses. But bacteria are just as important, and in addition to those three commonly-cited categories, there are pathogenic organisms that are protozoans and Helminthes (e.g., roundworms). Shouldn't these three categories be added as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.169.254 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Escherichia coli is most commonly causing a urinary tract infection!!!
Thanks for the very useful article. A great source of information. Much appreciated. NaySay 18:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Escherichia Coli might be the most commonly cause for urinary tract infection, but according to sources cited in the Escherichia Coli article(The first source, second paragraph half in it), it is not regarded as a pathogen because only some strains of it will cause illness.

62.97.167.17 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

!
i think, this article focuses a bit too much on human pathogens. especially in the table about "types of pathogens". Myrmeleon formicarius (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

??? there was no table about types of pathogens 75.155.134.185 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

!
Bit of an issue with formatting on this page, with lots of information being displayed in the 'prions' section of the table. Im not wikiliterate enough to fix this however :( Needs sorting out though. 83.100.130.69 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I think the etymology in this entry is wrong. It's my understanding from some other research that pathogen comes from the Greek pathos meaning "suffering" or "sorrow" and the French génique meaning "to give rise to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuboo (talk • contribs) 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense for the -gen part to come from gignomai OR genique, rather than the same greek source for the -gen in other words such as oxygen, γένος or -γενής http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-gen 27.32.241.104 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pathogen definition - misappropriation
An earlier commentator is, I think, right in that the definition given of a pathogen is wrong.

This article has just been published in the OnlineEarly section the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology (free access).

A proliferation of pathogens through the 20th century

J. Cunliffe

Abstract

A substantial proportion of immunologists, microbiologists and health professionals – and, indeed, many dictionaries – currently regard the term pathogen as a synonym for a pathogenic organism (most often a micro-organism). I will argue that this is a distortion of its original meaning – “a specific causative agent of disease”. An analysis of the historical use of the term pathogen together with a comparison of the meanings of pathogen, pathogenic and pathogenesis suggest that this was an insidious change. It began as a convenient abbreviation, escalated into a misappropriation and is now lodged in bio-medicine’s popular lexicon. In science, we should resist the pressures brought about by the mass action of common usage – unless there is a good, logical reason to accept this change. I propose that this common usage results in a distortion and leads to conceptual confusion, particularly when we try to understand the interaction between hosts and invasive organisms. This drift, in which pathogen becomes exclusively a living organism, is corrupting. There is a strong case for correcting and reversing it.

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3083.2008.02130.x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunlij (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the seminal question to ask is this: "Is asbestos a pathogen?" If you feel obliged to answer yes (I think you should) then this immediately exposes the corruption brought about by the ongoing constriction of the term "pathogen". The French are much more true to the original meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.146.83 (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting citation. I second the opinion. If you read papers in the biological and medical circle, the term "pathogen" really (overwhelmingly) refers to (all kinds of) disease causing agents. That is, pathogen includes infectious organisms, disease causing chemicals, debris of physical matter (micro-, nanoparticles), biological (macro)molecules, and the disease causing agents that arise in and derived from the host cells (including those in the human body), such as cancerous cells.--Achian (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What the...
There's a whole lot of information if you press edit, but that bit doesn't show up. Exec. Tassadar  ( comments, | contribs) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't75.155.134.185 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentence removed pending clarification
I saw this sentence in the lead:

"However, pathogens can infect unicellular organisms from all of the biological kingdoms."

The word "however" was clearly out of place, so I removed it. But still the sentence was misleading/incomplete. Pathogens infect unicellular organisms, besides WHAT? I don't know enough about the subject to correct the sentence, so if YOU know how to phrase it better, please do so. Probably something along the lines of "in addition to many multicellular organisms," but I'm really not sure, nor do I know how essential the sentence is in any case. zadignose (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Other ways of transmission
Fleas, bedbugs, rabid animals, and so forth. I think this article could be expanded. Brian Pearson (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC) non-pathogenic: like yogurt, which contains millions of bacteria, they transform into a sugar part of the milk thus making the film of the milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.196.27 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathogen Strength
It doesn't mention how long the ebola virus can survive outside the body 75.155.134.185 (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Pathogenic microbes
A relatively new article (meaning from 2008, so not truly "new"), Pathogenic microbes might be a good candidate for a merge to this article. It defines its territory as human pathogens (although you wouldn't guess that from the name). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Prions
The first sentence: "A pathogen is a microbe or microorganism such as a virus, bacterium, prion, or fungus that causes disease in its animal or plant host."

But prion diseases are caused by proteins, which are neither a microbe nor a microorganism. Should we say instead that a pathogen is an agent that causes disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.2.41 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo? Under "Potency"
"In countries that have higher sanitation standards, pathogens cannot survive for as long outside of the human. This is seen as encouragement to mutations to the pathogen, which would make it less deadly, as such mutations would allow the pathogen to survive in the host for longer periods of time."

"More?"

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Having said that there is consensus to move once there is a generic Pathogen article. So given the discussion, once at least a stub for Pathogen is available, I'll do the move if admin tools are needed. Leave a note on my talk page. Another option would be to split out the human portion from this article which would not require admin tools. However that should only be done if small sections would be moved to the new article so that the edit history would be preserved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As an update, the stub (actually a start class article) was created and the moves were done. I have asked the creator to sort through the inbound links, including those in templates to get them pointing to the correct article.  I would not have any idea which is correct for many of these so best to let the experts do the updates. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pathogen → Human pathogen — Only the first paragraph treats the topic in any general way. The rest of the article focuses entirely on human pathogens. Joja lozzo  23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Oppose - the rationale is a reason for expanding the article not for a WP:move. What would be left would still be a pathogen redirect to human pathogen, would it not? As it is the lede does mention animal and plant pathogens, and then when moved how would the lede look? As an illustration of this problem, I have just added a brief subsection animal pathogens from Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions - Page 510 Daniel Simberloff, Marcel Rejmánek - 2011 "Pathogens, animal by Graham J. Hickling University of Tennessee, Knoxville. This new line + ref can be deleted, but consideration needs to be taken of the purpose of a move in this case. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposition withdrawn if there is a generic pathogen article - plant, animal human. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Support WP:BIAS. A stub should be left in its place, otherwise it would be extremely unbalanced in favour of humans. A stubby balanced article is better than an unbalanced one. A subarticle covering humans is better than removing human content to rebalance the article. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose until such time as there is something of substance to replace the moved article. Having Pathogen redirect to Human pathogen is not an improvement over the status quo.  Powers T 20:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. I think the proposal should include creating a Pathogen stub that includes any non-specific pathogen content from this article. Please see this draft: User:Jojalozzo/Pathogen.  Joja  lozzo  23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

 * I think it would be appropriate to have a Pathogen article covering all pathogens as well as a Human pathogen article. This one appears to be a good start on the one about human pathogens. It makes little sense to me that a topic as important as Human pathogen doesn't have an article of its own but redirects to List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens. If we were to move this one to "Human pathogen", a merge with "List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens" might make sense. Joja  lozzo  05:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human pathogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124082354/http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC419/Tutorials/infectiousdisease.html to http://microvet.arizona.edu/Courses/MIC419/Tutorials/infectiousdisease.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429144303/http://www.d.umn.edu/~rhicks1/diversity/Pronunciation%20Guide.pdf to http://www.d.umn.edu/~rhicks1/diversity/Pronunciation%20Guide.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human pathogen


text:
Talk:Four Cardinal Principles

Untitled
The Four cardinal principles were stated by Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and are the four issues for which debate was not and is allowed within the People's Republic of China.
 * does this sentence sound confusing to anyone else but me?

I think it's just missing a "not", as in "was not and is not...", but I'm not enough of a Sinophile to know for sure. --LDC

Considering the four principles are constitutional basis of the political definition of PRC, so I think there is a "not" missing. However, does it really make any sense to put the sentence "...for which debate was not and is [not] allowed within the PRC"? If it's just to emphasize the importance and solidity and indubitability, I think it's better to just state that the four principles are now highlighted both in the constitution of PRC and the CPC. 128.141.254.70 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Emblem of People’s Militia.svg

title: Talk:Four Cardinal Principles